Introduction: Lord Forbes of Newcastle
Leave of Absence
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I am due to travel to the Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth in New Delhi. Accordingly, I seek leave of absence from your Lordships’ House from tomorrow until I return next Monday 19 January.
Meat Labelling
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to ensure that labelling on meat states whether the animal was stunned before being killed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare and slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. As set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, we are also committed to ensuring that consumers have access to clear information on how their food is produced. We will continue working with relevant stakeholders to explore how food labelling can support consumer transparency and promote animal welfare.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister. I know she is a genuine supporter of good animal welfare, which is why I was surprised that there was not a word in the strategy document that came out about the very cruel and barbaric way millions of animals are killed each year in a non-stun method. A lamb is shackled, pulled along and then has its throat cut, and takes up to nearly two minutes sometimes to die. It is just shocking, and all in the name of a religious belief. Even if this Government will not ban this kind of non-stun slaughter, will they at least commit to make it a legal requirement to label the meat to show whether the animal has been fully stunned? Will she make it a legal requirement for all government institutions, such as schools and hospitals, to label properly so that the public can have a choice and show their horror at the treatment of sentient animals?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said in my Answer, we encourage all animals to be stunned before slaughter. It is what we would prefer as a Government—clearly, as someone who strongly supports animal welfare, it is what I would prefer. We have to recognise the religious sensitivities around this issue, and we are looking at the best way to move forward regarding food labelling.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the Minister agree that, before any labelling scheme could be considered, there would have to be an assurance that it would be comprehensive and not discriminatory against religious slaughter of shechita and halal? While a recent study in the American Journal of Veterinary Research confirmed that
“religious slaughter induces swift LOC”—
or loss of consciousness—
“reinforcing its potential to minimize animal suffering”,
we know that animal welfare standards in industrialised slaughterhouses, using gassing and electrocution, are often very poor and far from humane. Any labelling scheme must fully reflect all those aspects.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, it is important that any labelling is completely accurate; it has to be transparent, and any discriminatory matters have to be carefully thought through, as the noble Baroness rightly said. She mentioned CO2 gas stunning, which is used in around 90% of pig slaughters and is incredibly cruel. It is one reason why we included it in the animal welfare strategy; it is a method of slaughter that we would also like to see phased out.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, one of the biggest challenges for animal welfare in the south-west of England is the sheer distance that animals have to travel to slaughterhouses, due to the closure of many abattoirs over recent years. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that local abattoirs are supported and that new abattoirs can open across the western counties?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have every sympathy for the noble Earl’s concerns about the closure of small abattoirs and the distances that animals have to travel. I was previously the president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which had a specific campaign on that, so I understand the issue. The Government have provided grants to support small abattoirs from closing. There are a number of difficulties—including the challenge of having trained staff in abattoirs and people who want to do the job—but we are working closely with the FSA on how we can move forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, what is the position as regards imported meat, both in relation to halal and in meeting other animal welfare requirements, either from a third country or via the EU? Are we yet in a position to label that meat as meeting our very high domestic animal welfare standards?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
All trade deals, whether for import or export, are expected to meet the animal welfare standards that we set in this country—that is what we expect as our standards. When we move forward with the proposals in the animal welfare strategy, labelling will clearly be part of it.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, on the slaughter of sheep and goats in halal, there is another solution. There are modern methods of stunning for sheep and goats that are non-lethal but render the animals unconscious before killing; they are wholly consistent with Islamic requirements for halal certification and are supported by the Food Standards Agency. They are based on well-established practices in New Zealand, where all sheep are stunned and their meat is compliant for halal certification. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the universal adoption of similar measures in the UK? They would enable, first, the export of sheepmeat and, secondly, UK consumption of sheepmeat in processed products and in public provision such as in schools and hospitals which is both from stunned animals and halal certified.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The question from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, gives me the opportunity to mention the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. I know that he is a very strong proponent of this. In fact, his support was instrumental in establishing the protocol, which is based on the New Zealand model. I am glad to confirm that the Government very much support this. The demonstration of life protocol provides assurance for Muslim consumers that the stunning of sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements. The protocol protects the welfare of the animals involved while also supporting any opportunities for trade. The Food Standards Agency oversees the monitoring and enforcement of animal welfare in slaughterhouses, and it also supports the protocol. So the Government will consider ways they can encourage halal slaughterhouses to use this protocol.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, data from the Food Standards Agency revealed that in the last decade 27% of inspections of slaughterhouses permitted to perform religious non-stun slaughter concluded with a rating of improvement necessary or urgent improvement necessary. This compares with just 10% of all other establishments. Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to strengthen the enforcement of existing rules and standards? I refer the House to my registered interest as a livestock farmer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The official veterinarians in the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses during slaughter operations. It is their job to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that some slaughterhouses carry out both stun and non-stun slaughters. It is difficult to attribute audit outcomes to one type of slaughter if both have occurred. It is difficult to link it specifically to a slaughter method. What we should be concerned about in government is consistently high standards in our abattoirs. That is something that we work with the FSA on.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, religious conventions change over the years. As we have heard, this is a very cruel practice. Has the Minister considered meeting religious leaders to see how animal welfare could be improved?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have in the past done exactly that and we will continue to look at how we can improve animal welfare by encouraging take-up of the demonstration of life protocol. As we look to move forward in discussing labelling of food production, we will work with stakeholders, which, of course, if it was impacting on religious practice, would include religious leaders.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned the American Veterinary Medical Association’s recent publication, which has been three times peer reviewed and shows a new understanding of shechita. Can the Minister confirm that shechita is within the legal definition of stunning?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We mentioned the demonstration of life protocol that is used in New Zealand, so there is no non-stun slaughter there, but it has an exception for shechita, which comes to the point that the noble Lord is making. As we discuss this issue further, clearly the issues surrounding shechita and halal killing need to be looked at within those religious communities’ expectations.
Youth Guarantee Scheme: Evaluation
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the success of the Youth Guarantee scheme will be measured; in particular, what specific employment and training outcomes will be targeted and how long-term labour market impacts will be evaluated.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s youth guarantee will increase opportunities for 16 to 24 year- olds to make them work-ready and equipped to thrive. Success will be measured by improvements in employment outcomes, a reduction in economic inactivity, and an increase in participation in education and training. We will monitor these outcomes nationally for all youth guarantee participants. This will build on the already commissioned evaluation of eight youth guarantee trailblazers and a planned full process evaluation of the jobs guarantee.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure she will agree that the youth guarantee scheme could be a vital reform to the welfare state, offering a lifeline to young people who are currently shut out from the rewards of work and learning. Can the Minister ensure that the youth guarantee scheme is focused and well managed and that updates are reported to Parliament? More importantly, I make a plea to her that the Government communicate this scheme positively, and do so directly to young people and their communities.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that, while all unemployment is devastating for the individual, for young people to not be able to access the workplace, or education and training, is a waste of their talents at the most important part of their adult lives. That is why we are absolutely committed to ensuring successful delivery of the youth guarantee and the jobs guarantee. It is a top priority for the Government. The department will provide updates on the development and delivery of the youth guarantee. My noble friend is right about the need to raise awareness. That is why we will partner with national and local organisations, and employers, to increase awareness of the youth guarantee so that young people and their communities understand the support and opportunities available.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Make UK, which has 26,000 manufacturing companies that belong to it and is a major apprenticeship provider. As the Minister is very aware, because we have spoken to her on the subject, currently, apprenticeships in manufacturing are declining across the UK because of the big gap between the money that the apprenticeship levy provides and the actual cost of it, as well as rising employment costs. Given that the industrial strategy is committed to reversing this trend and increasing the funding bands, when will the Government follow through on their commitment, which is really needed for the youth guarantee scheme to be a success?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that I have been able to speak to Make UK about the important role of apprenticeships in delivering engineering skills for young and older people. I understand the concerns raised about the funding rates for engineering apprenticeships. That is why, as I said when I met Make UK, we will continue to monitor that in order to ensure that they meet the costs of training. We will continue to find other ways to encourage people on to apprenticeships, such as removing some of the bureaucracy associated with them, supporting the reform of end-point assessment, and removing the requirement for separate maths and English qualifications for adults.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, although we welcome the youth employment scheme, can the Minister say whether the Government will monitor the employment of 26 and 27 year-olds? If you are a small business and you can get someone at 24 for nothing, will that reduce your employment of 26 to 27 year-olds? We do not want to displace the unemployment from the 24 year-olds to the 26 year-olds.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course we do not want to displace the unemployment, but, as I suggested in responding to my noble friend, there is something particularly challenging and important about young people who do not even get the opportunity to get into the workforce and to have the chance of a successful future. That is why, although there will always need to be an age cut-off for a scheme, the youth guarantee, with its additional investment from the Budget and its focus on support from school onwards, will be effective in getting young people into the workplace, and keeping them there when they get to the age of 25 or 26 as well.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the policies of the Government in relation to the Employment Rights Act and the implications of the tax increases are directly undermining opportunities for young people. In all seriousness, will the Minister urge colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to reconsider these choices? If the Minister is going to go to the Treasury, I have no doubt that there are people in this Chamber who would be very happy to go with her to try to make the case.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness, even when partly incapacitated, is always forthright in her questions—I wish her good luck with her recovery.
If it were the activities of this Government that were responsible for youth unemployment and the numbers of young people not earning and learning, we would not have inherited the frankly disgraceful levels of young people not earning and learning at the point at which we came into government. The difference is that, in our case, we have been to the Treasury; we have got from the Chancellor an investment of £1.5 billion into the youth guarantee, to help young people back into work, and to ensure that we can provide 50,000 more apprenticeships for young people. That is the effective way to ensure that young people get the opportunity to start their working lives in the way that we would all want them to.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher, I am quite interested in how the Government will quality control jobs. Back in the day, when we used to do employment fortnight, those children who did not have direct access to parents or friends who had good places they could do jobs at ended up working in charity shops, which was all quite meaningless.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I suspect that all those people working in charity shops do not think their work is meaningless. I think the noble Lord is making a point about how we ensure that, when we provide, for example, the two weeks’ work experience that the Government are committed to providing for all young people, we do so in a way that gives them high-quality opportunities. I can assure him that schools focus on that, as he will know, as do mayoral combined authorities. We will ensure that, as we deliver that commitment, we are working with all of them to make sure that these are high-quality opportunities for young people.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has agreed, this vital new guarantee requires the enthusiastic commitment of employers, and I would say that is particularly important in key growth sectors where we are expecting employment to grow. Can she outline what plans are in place to secure that involvement, including in those sectors with high levels of SMEs and microenterprises—for example, the creative industries?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We need employers to recognise the benefits that providing opportunities for young people can bring, whether through placements or taking young people on as apprentices, or through giving them opportunities through the jobs guarantee. That is why we are working closely with employers and the representatives of employers. It is why, for example, with respect to the jobs guarantee, we will provide full funding for employers to take young people on at the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week. It is why, when it comes to apprenticeships, we already provide a national insurance contribution break for young people and, in the case of foundation apprenticeships, £2,000 for the employer to take on those young people.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, most young people are looking for permanent employment. What proportion of young people will be moving on into permanent employment? Will the Government be tracking the quality of that employment—namely, salary and progression?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It will certainly be the case that in the evaluation we will want to track how many young people are able to move into permanent employment. I agree with the noble Lord about that. Evaluations of job support schemes in the past have suggested that there is a positive movement into long-term employment from these types of schemes.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am all for opportunities for young people, but I challenge the Minister on why, particularly, young people on universal credit have to wait 18 months before accessing support. Why can we not move this forward, like we do for younger people who are in danger of being NEET, to six months?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
They will not have to wait 18 months. The backstop at 18 months is a guaranteed job of six months. Before they get to that point, they will have received support much earlier on from specialist work coaches, access to the additional 300,000 opportunities through either a swap or work experience to try work, and the support of other organisations to help tackle the issues that may be keeping them out of the workplace in the first place.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider their decision not to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is the Government’s long-standing position not to comment on the detail of security or intelligence matters, including whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. The Government’s approach to threats to the UK is kept under constant review. However, the Government utterly condemn the appalling violence recently seen from the Iranian regime.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend says. However, the IRGC remains what it has always been: a bunch of murderous fascists and fanatics. We are seeing that fact play out tragically on the streets of Iran at the moment. In the context of the Question on the Order Paper, I am concerned about the activities of the IRGC on the streets of Britain. It pursues alleged enemies of the Iranian state, very often using criminal proxies for its poisonous ends. On that basis, could we perhaps see an undertaking by the Home Office that there will be an assessment on what would be the effects of full proscription of the IRGC?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend, we keep proscription under constant review, and that will always be the case. I am sure he is aware that the IRGC is sanctioned by the UK Government. That sanction means that we have travel bans, so no known member of the IRGC can travel to the United Kingdom. Where it has resources in the United Kingdom, those resources are frozen under international obligations. So there are significant actions against that appalling regime, and we are acutely aware of the difficulties and challenges that it is facing. We condemn the actions it is taking on the ground in Iran at the moment and we will keep the issue of proscription under review, as I have mentioned.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, over the past few days we have witnessed horrifying pictures of murder and torture on our TV screens. We cannot allow that to just go past without making some very strong statements, knowing full well that the IRGC is behind a lot of those murders and killings. Will the Minister— I am sure he will—take back to the Prime Minister our need to be very forthright in condemning this and making sure that we are working with our other partners to ensure that this horrible regime understands the feeling from the West?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has this week spoken directly to the Iranian Government. The Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom is being summoned to see Foreign Office Ministers today. As we speak, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is making a Statement in the House of Commons outlining a range of other measures that the Government intend to take. The noble Baroness can be assured that we are appalled by the actions of the Iranian Government and will continue to make representations accordingly.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, with the focus on the problems in Iran at the moment, and bearing in mind what the Minister has said about what he can and cannot comment on, does he agree that with the Intelligence and Security Committee’s finding that:
“Iran poses a wide-ranging, persistent and unpredictable threat”,
and MI5’s revelation of more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots, the continued failure to proscribe the IRGC leaves a dangerous gap in our national security that cannot continue to be avoided?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that both the security services and the Government have taken a very serious view of the threat of the Iranian regime at home and abroad. That is why the Government have undertaken to impose the financial sanctions and travel bans I referred to in my answer to my noble friend Lord Cryer. We keep proscription under review. That does not mean that we do not keep security issues under review at all times as well. We will take whatever action is required to protect Britain and British citizens and to ensure that we deflate the conflation that is happening now in Iran.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The United Arab Emirates is advising its students that British academic institutions are being used to radicalise students by Islamist groups with links to Iran. How concerned are the Government about the impact on our international reputation and our universities, and what do the Government propose to do about it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have said to the House already, the security services are very aware of the potential threat from Iranian forces and Iranian operatives. The foreign influence registration scheme has been in place and we have the Iranian regime in the first tier of that scheme, so it is a criminal offence to support foreign activity from Iran in the United Kingdom, with a severe penalty of five years’ imprisonment. As I have said, we have also sanctioned individuals so that they cannot travel to the United Kingdom when they are known to us, and their finances are frozen. We keep all matters under review; the question of proscription is one of those matters that we will continue to review.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
Does the Minister accept that, in the end, the decision to proscribe the IRGC is a political one rather than a legal one, so the need to send a strong political signal may trump the desire for complete legal consistency?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The issue for the Government at all times is the impact of that proscription in the first place, which is why we are keeping it under review. I cannot comment on the details of proscription, but I say to the noble Lord, who I know has great experience in this area, that sanctions, financial freezing of assets and the foreign influence registration scheme that we brought in very recently are all major pressures on the Iranian regime. The proscription issue is one that we will continue to examine, but it is not one I can answer on at this Dispatch Box, for reasons that I am sure the noble Lord is fully aware of.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as has already been mentioned, the ISC’s report last year on Iran demonstrated the key role that the IRGC plays in the Iranian regime. People say that, for example, the United States has proscribed the IRGC, but it has a very different set of legal requirements from our proscription. I understand from a story in this week’s Times that the Government are reviewing the method by which they could take action against the IRGC. If they are, I ask the Minister to make sure that the ISC is kept fully informed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee myself, I would want to see that the committee is kept fully informed. My noble friend will know that Jonathan Hall KC is currently undertaking a review of legislation in this sphere, at the request of the current Government. That is expected to report shortly. We will consider those recommendations and, if need be, find legislative time to execute those recommendations. I will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is kept fully briefed.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I register an interest: along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have been sanctioned by the Iranian regime. Our ambassador in Tehran was called in because a flag of the Iranian opposition was put up on the embassy here in London. I am glad to hear that the Iranian ambassador is being called in as a result of what is going on, but why are we so slow? On the IRGC, we deliberate, speculate and discuss; we do not act. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iranians are being mowed down. Can I ask the Minister to encourage the Government to act and not just talk?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that the 550 Iranian citizens who have been sanctioned by this Government would say that we have acted slowly. They are facing travel bans and financial freezing of their assets, and those 550 individuals known to this Government have a marker against them. I do not think we are taking it in the way in which the noble Lord described. We have summoned the ambassador, we have made representations at a UK level to the foreign office in Iran this week, and we will continue to take action. It is important that we do, because the Iranian regime is a malign force that is taking appalling actions in Iran and is a threat to nationals elsewhere in Europe and the United Kingdom. We have to take action on that, and we will, but proscription is an issue still under review.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the IRGC in Iran is accountable only to Ayatollah Khamenei and nobody else, and that in the past two weeks it has killed more than 3,000 people, according to the estimations of the Iranian resistance? Is he also aware that Erfan Soltani, who is 26 years old and was taken from his house six days ago, is due to be executed tomorrow? When the Iranian ambassador comes, could he express the strongest condemnation of this proposed action and call for it not to happen and for there not to be a mass execution of those who are protesting for freedom and democracy in Iran at the present time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s long-standing position that we are opposed to capital punishment. I will make sure that her remarks in relation to the individual, whom I am aware of because of press reports in the last few hours, are drawn to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. My noble friend the Minister for the Foreign Office is next to me, and she will be able to assess what and how representations are made to the Iranians in that respect.
United States: Withdrawal from International Organisations
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom of the withdrawal by the United States from 66 international organisations, conventions and treaties.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the decision to withdraw from certain international organisations, conventions and treaties is, of course, for the United States. It is the right of every sovereign state to take its own decisions in this regard, but the UK’s commitment to multilateral co-operation and international law remains as strong as ever. The UN and other international institutions continue to play a critical role in advancing our priorities on climate change, preventing and ending conflicts and ending violence against women and girls.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I fully recognise the right of the United States of America to take part in or leave international organisations as the elected Government see fit. It seems very strange that a presidency that chases peace awards has withdrawn funding from and organisational commitment to Education Cannot Wait—the organisation set up to support child refugees suffering from conflict—the United Nations’ Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Fund, the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict. In the UK, there has been cross-party support for these five bodies across several terms of Parliament. Will this Labour Government maintain the funding committed by the previous Conservative Government to these organisations as the new funding round is announced over the coming months? Will the UK also use its good offices at the United Nations through the friends of peacebuilding to try to ensure increased support from others to try to make up for this American shortfall?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As my noble friend said, it is for the Americans to make their own choices about what they decide to fund. The organisations that he referred to—he mentioned Education Cannot Wait in particular—do a tremendous job, and our commitment to them is steadfast. Our allocations will be announced in the coming weeks, I hope, so there is not too much longer to wait for them, so that noble Lords can see for themselves where the United Kingdom Government are putting their money. In broad terms, my noble friend makes the point very well about multilateralism and the need for countries to come together to address the greatest challenges that the world faces, and I agree with him.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Does the Minister agree that this latest decision by the Americans is not evidence of isolationism but actually an indication of increasing intervention by the United States without any regard to international co-operation or the implications for the climate, poverty or human rights? It is a determination to act on their own regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I encourage noble Lords not to overinterpret a decision such as this. I note the announcement last week of $2 billion from the United States to OCHA, which organises humanitarian support through the UN, which many people had not predicted. It is important that we respect the decisions of our closest ally in terms of funding. It is also important that the United Kingdom is not seen as a defender of the status quo in many of these organisations. Change is needed. We have argued for change for some time now. It is being accelerated because of decisions about money, but we should not allow our views on budgets to obscure the fact that we want change, efficiency and every penny to go to those who need it most.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, without US support and funding, it is likely that many of those organisations will need to reassess their work or seek greater funding and support from other member states, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, outlined. Can the Minister tell the House whether the UK has received any requests for additional funding—that is, in addition to what we are already spending—from any of these organisations following the USA’s withdrawal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is important that we keep this in a bit of perspective. The amount of money that would come as a consequence of the announcement that the US made is about 3% of the UN’s overall budget. We already fund some organisations in the UN that the US does not fund, and we are not members of some of the 66 organisations in regard to which the US announced that it was changing its position. Where we believe that the global challenges can be met in British interests by our participation, we will continue. Where we do not feel like that, we will not.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister take advantage of the visit by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the end of this week to work with him to sustain the work of these institutions which are being damaged by the American decision? Frankly, whether or not it is America’s right to do this is not the relevant point. The relevant point is whether or not the people who are helped by these organisations will continue to be so.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I have explained, we are not participants in all the organisations concerned, but we are of course strong supporters of the United Nations and of the Secretary-General and we take every opportunity to participate positively and constructively. We take our leadership role globally very seriously and we will continue to do that; we will continue to be strong supporters of the multilateral system in all its forms.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, following President Trump’s announcement, the US will be the only country outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The US is the world’s second-largest carbon emitter, which has negative consequences for everyone. Are the Government concerned that a major polluter will operate outside international law? If so, what will they do?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely committed to the framework on climate change and to the Paris Agreement; that is not going to change. The best thing we can do is to be clear about our position and clear about what we see as the economic benefits of transition away from the use of fossil fuels. I think many countries are coming to agree with us on this because of the impact on climate, of course, but also because of the benefits to them in relation to the cost of production and energy sovereignty.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, let us make a note about further mass graves being discovered in Darfur and the continuing conflict in Sudan. Will the Minister please take every opportunity to emphasise the links between conflict and justice, and conflict and displacement, with over 120 million people displaced in the world? In particular, will she emphasise our commitment to the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide and the duty to predict, to prevent, to protect and to punish?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord and thank him for raising Sudan and what has happened in Darfur. I was encouraged to see the United States’ commitment to OCHA under the leadership of Tom Fletcher. I am meeting Tom tomorrow, and I will be discussing the very issues that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the various UN peacekeeping missions around the world—I think there are currently 14—have a vital role to play. However, those of us who have had the privilege of visiting many of those missions know that some are notoriously poorly run and have limited cost control. Can the Minister tell the House what measures she will take in this very austere time for the UN to make sure that we get better value for money from these organisations and peacekeeping missions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is a lot more involved in this than peacekeeping, but it is a very important element of what the United Nations and other multilateral organisations involve themselves in. The point about value and efficiency is critical. We are being quite forward-leaning, as they would say in the Foreign Office, about our desire to see reform and change. It matters that this money ought to find its way to the front line, be that in support of a peacekeeping mission in Somalia or for maternal health in Kenya. Efficiency and value for money matter in their own right, but also because we want to sustain and grow public confidence.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister just needs to look behind her to see that faces behind her know that this is the wrong thing to do. While the Minister might suggest that it is for the United States Government to make this decision, which it is, the Government of this country can have a view. Do the Government support the US Government withdrawing from these 66 organisations as a matter of policy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think my relationship with my colleagues on this side of the House is pretty good, actually, so I am not overly worried about that. They will have their own views, too, by the way. It is not really for the United Kingdom to make a fuss with the United States about withdrawing from organisations that we are not a part of and some regional groupings that we are not involved with and demand that it should stay engaged. We have to keep a bit of perspective here—this is 3% of the UN budget we are talking about. On our ability to make progress with certain agencies to do with health, women’s health in particular, we have always been at the forefront of this and that is not going to change.
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
How nice it is to be back here again. I oppose Clauses 118, 119 and 120 standing part of the Bill. These clauses introduce a pre-emptive targeting of people based on location rather than behaviour. That should concern anyone who cares about the right to peaceful protest. Under these clauses, a senior police officer may designate an area in anticipation of a protest, based on a belief that an offence is likely to occur. Once that designation is in place, simply wearing an item said to conceal identity becomes a criminal offence. This applies to everyone in a designated area. Criminal liability comes not from conduct but from being in a certain place and from what a person is wearing. That is a profound shift in approach and one that I cannot support.
It is also a massively broad discretion. An inspector can designate a locality for up to 24 hours, extendable, on the basis of a prediction or guess, rather than evidence, of immediate serious violence. The result is a huge power to ban everyday protective coverings across a place at a time based only on an estimate of what might happen. That is exactly the kind of power that leads to overenforcement and a chilling effect on protest, particularly for those who already face risks from being identified.
The Government may say that defences to these provisions exist for health, religion or work, but those protections operate after arrest and charge, not at the point where the person decides whether it is safe for them to attend a protest at all. That is the key issue here. Liberty’s supporters have been clear about the real-world impact. One disabled person wrote:
“I am clinically vulnerable … Forcing disabled people like me to unmask is surely disability discrimination”.
Another said:
“As a single woman, I do not want to be identified”.
Women who have experienced domestic abuse may cover their faces for the same reason.
For others, including diaspora activists and those with credible fears of transnational repression, anonymity is not a political statement but a basic safeguard. We have already seen reporting on how mask restrictions at solidarity protests in the UK, including those linked to Hong Kong, have deterred participation because surveillance and reprisals are real concerns. This then becomes about who feels safe enough to exercise their democratic rights.
I must also ask: are these clauses really necessary? The police already have a targeted power, under Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to require the removal of certain items where this is justified. That power has been used in recent protest policing, including at protests outside a migrant hotel in Epping. Can the Minister say what evidence the Government have of a gap in existing targeted powers that they cannot meet, rather than simply a desire for broader, pre-emptive control? The Government have not demonstrated an operational gap so far. What we appear to have instead is a preference for wider, pre-emptive control rather than targeted, evidence-based policing.
That matters because Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights are absolutely clear: any restriction on protest must be necessary and proportionate, and the Strasbourg court has repeatedly warned against measures that deter peaceful participation through fear of sanction. A clause that criminalises ordinary behaviour across a designated area, without reference to a person’s actual behaviour, is precisely the kind of measure that risks crossing that line.
Will the Government consider narrowing the trigger to “imminent and serious violence or disorder” and introducing a clear front-end reasonable excuse protection, rather than relying on defences only after arrest? If the Government’s concern is intimidation or disorder, then the answer is the better use of existing targeted powers, not a blanket approach that sweeps up disabled people, women concerned about safety and minority communities, along with everybody else. For all those reasons, I support removing Clauses 118, 119 and 120 from the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I stand to oppose the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to suggest that it is vital that these clauses stand part of the Bill, because protest is strongest when it is open, accountable and proud. A movement that hides its face borrows the language of secrecy; a movement that stands unmasked invites public judgment and moral authority.
History teaches us that the most effective and morally persuasive movements were led openly. Emmeline Pankhurst marched into the public square and faced arrest and imprisonment without concealment, because the suffragette cause depended on moral clarity and public witness. Arthur Scargill led the miners in mass action, visible and unhidden, because solidarity is built on faces and names, not anonymity. Martin Luther King Jr stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and in the streets of Birmingham with nothing to hide, because non-violence and moral authority require openness. Mahatma Gandhi led millions in acts of civil resistance with a visible, symbolic presence that made the movement impossible to ignore.
The Government’s own summary of the Bill is clear about the purpose of these measures. It refers to:
“A new criminal offence which prohibits the wearing or otherwise using of an item that conceals identity when in an area designated by police under the new provisions”.
That designation is constrained by a statutory trigger:
“A designation can only be made … when the police reasonably believe that a protest may or is taking place in that area, the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences”.
These are targeted powers, aimed at preventing criminality while protecting lawful assembly. It is not about silencing dissent; it is about responsibility and transparency. The fact sheet also notes a practical enforcement tool:
“The bill also creates a new power for the police to require someone to remove a face covering during a protest”.
That power underlines the expectation that those who lead and speak for causes should be prepared to be seen and held to account.
I mentioned older historical protest leaders, but I can bring the Committee more up to date. Contemporary political figures continue to lead visibly. We all have tremendous respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has led a few protests in the past. I have looked at about 50 absolutely magnificent photos of the noble Baroness protesting in Westminster and other areas. She has been at the forefront of various Green Party protests. She said that she had been protesting all her life, but I could not find any of her as a schoolgirl at the anti-Vietnam War or Aldermaston protests.
She has a varied repertoire: stop the police Bill; stop pension financing; outside the Royal Court of Justice with a banner saying “Neither Confirm Nor Deny”; stop fracking in Lancashire; stop dumping sewage, South West Water; renters’ rights; and many more—all with her trusty loudhailer. She also said that part of protest was to cause inconvenience and disruption. I suggest that the three of them on the green holding up a banner against Guantanamo Bay did not cause much inconvenience.
The serious point, as I tease the noble Baroness, is this: in every single photo, after her last 50 years of protest, she and her colleagues had their faces uncovered, demonstrating modern political leadership in public demonstrations. To all other organisations I say that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whom I admire as a conviction politician, can protest so frequently with her face uncovered, so can and should everyone else. So I say, “Go on, organisers: encourage openness, train you marshals and make sure your aims are clear”. To the police I say, “Use these powers proportionately and protect lawful assembly”. To the public I say, “Support the right to protest and expect those who lead to do so with courage and transparency”.
I conclude by saying that, when protest is unmasked, it persuades rather than intimidates; it invites debate rather than hiding behind anonymity. That is how movements achieve lasting change.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, that was a powerful speech, but it really is not the case that all protesters are in the position of Martin Luther King, Emmeline Pankhurst, Mahatma Gandhi and the noble Baroness herself. There are protesters who have good reason for wishing to conceal their identity. If I am a protester against the current regime in Tehran and join a protest in London in order to express my views, I will be genuinely and properly concerned that my identity being revealed may well lead to action being taken against my family and associates in Tehran, and I have a very good reason for not wanting to have my identity disclosed.
I am concerned that Clause 118(2) is too narrow. It provides a defence for a person who has concealed their identity: showing that the reason they are wearing a mask is for
“a purpose relating to the health of the person or others, the purposes of religious observance, or … a purpose relating to the person’s work”.
Those are the only defences. That does not cover the example I gave—I could give many other examples—of the protester concerned about what is going on in Tehran. So I suggest to the Minister that, although I do not support the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to remove these clauses, I do think she has a point about the narrow scope of the defences in the clause.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made her point so ably that I was not tempted to speak, until I heard the counter-speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It is simply ahistoric to suggest that the suffragettes—those protesters who everybody loves now but who were once incarcerated and tortured by the British state—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Indeed, they went on hunger strike. It is simply ahistoric to suggest there was not a significant clandestine element to their operations. I am sure that, if one were to examine other examples the noble Lord gave, one would find greater complexity than he offered us in his very glib comments about protest.
Just minutes ago in this Chamber, noble Lords from across the House expressed their horror at what has been happening in Iran. On any given day in your Lordships’ House, similar comments will be made about Hong Kong or protests anywhere else in the world. It is of concern that organisations that many of us respect, such as JUSTICE, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and so on, are now writing very concerning reports about silencing the streets of the UK.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I agree with everything that she said. I start by reminding the Committee that I have an interest as chair of Big Brother Watch. In this group we are considering Clauses 118, 119 and 120, which are not only draconian in their effect but very poorly drafted. In the course of my speech, I have five questions about these clauses for the Minister, which I ask him to respond to when he replies.
Clauses 118, 119 and 120 create a new offence of concealing identity at protests. However, as I will demonstrate, and as has already been said, it is vital that individuals are able to preserve their anonymity at protests. Other clauses in the Bill promote the use of highly intrusive and totally unregulated facial recognition technology at protests. We are currently in the Wild West with this mass surveillance technology. It is being used by law enforcement and private firms without any permission, regulation or oversight from Parliament. The Bill contains the first mention of the phrase “facial recognition” in any legislation, yet it does nothing to control or monitor its use. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the Bill fails again to regulate and control this mass surveillance technology?
Authorising the use of this technology, as the Bill does, without first controlling how it is used, puts the cart way ahead of the horse. The combination of this mass surveillance and prohibiting face coverings at protests, as these clauses do, has a seriously chilling effect on people’s willingness to participate in demonstrations.
There are many categories of law-abiding citizens—we heard some from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who may prefer to conceal their identity at protests for entirely legitimate reasons, such as those protesting against a hostile foreign state who fear retribution for themselves or their families; those who prefer that their employer does not know their political views; those who criticise their own religious or cultural communities; survivors of sexual violence and harassment, who need to stay below the radar; or those who simply do not wish to be the subject of mass surveillance by totally unregulated facial recognition technology. Anonymity is an important enabler of freedom of assembly and association. It allows participants a certain level of protection against authorities singling out or identifying specific individuals.
There are serious problems with the drafting of Clauses 118 to 120. Clause 119 does not require that a person knows they are in a designated area for them to commit an offence. This compares unfavourably with Sections 12(5A) and 14(5A) of the Public Order Act 1986, which also imposes conditions on processions and assemblies. That Act includes the requirement that, at the time of the offence,
“the person knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed”.
There is no such requirement in Clause 119, so a protestor who knows nothing of such a designation could well be arrested and prosecuted. Can the Minister explain why that is right?
Worse still, Clause 118 appears to reverse the burden of proof, which means a defendant would have the burden—presumably on the balance of probabilities—to prove that they were wearing a face covering for health or other reasons. Why is this not the criminal burden or standard? This risks people being wrongly convicted on the lower standard of proof, which is especially concerning as the offence has such wide application. Furthermore, anyone wearing a Covid-style mask in the locality of a protest, even if they are there for a completely different reason, could be caught by this offence and would not have the protections of the normal burden and standard of proof at trial. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?
Clause 119 has no limit on the types of offences that would give rise to the power to make the designation. That means that the designation could be made disproportionately, such as on the basis of only minor offences. In addition, there is no protection from the offence itself and its designation being circular, which means that an officer may justify a designation against concealing identity on the basis that they believe the offence of concealing one’s identity may be committed.
Another problem with these clauses is that the maximum sentence of one month’s custody is the same as for the offence of refusing to remove a face covering under Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I think the Committee will agree that the conduct element of the Section 60AA offence—refusing to comply with the lawful direction of a police officer—is significantly more serious and by definition implies awareness of the condition, unlike the new offence. It seems disproportionate that the new offence would attract the same sentence. Does the Minister agree?
Clauses 118 to 120 are defective in many important ways. In any case, even if they were better written, they would still unreasonably and unnecessarily inhibit and have a chilling effect on lawful protests. For all these reasons, they must be strongly opposed and removed from the Bill.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am quite open- minded about the clause on face coverings and whether it is a good or bad thing to have face coverings at protests. I have just a couple of points for the Government in considering whether to change the provisions in any way.
First, imposing more conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested, to narrow the provisions might be laudable but will make them harder and harder to enforce. The officers on the street can take action only on what they see, and if the person alleges that they have a member of their family in Iran, or wherever it happens to be, it will be quite hard for the officer on the street, so it may make no difference at all to the initial action. At the ongoing investigation and prosecution that might follow, they may then want to rebut—if they intend to—the claim that that defence is available. It will impose more burden on the prosecution, so we must be very careful about the conditions that we impose on it.
Secondly, although we tend to think about face masks being worn by only some people in the crowd, we could anticipate that everybody in the crowd wears a mask. If that is the case, it can be quite intimidating, and it makes normal policing quite difficult to embark on. For example, one way in which you would notice if someone has a bail condition that they should not attend a protest is whether you can recognise them. In terms of general investigation, if everybody has a mask, it is quite difficult to distinguish one person from another. We might anticipate some of the things that we saw in the 1930s. We have the Public Order Act 1936, which was intended to stop people from wearing uniforms. It could become a kind of uniform, or at least an aspect of a uniform, to signify support for a political purpose.
This clause needs some thought if it is to go forward. I ask for as much consideration as possible for the enforcers, who will be criticised if they get it wrong, but we can anticipate now whether they might be left in an invidious position.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I rather agree with the noble Lord’s concern about how ever more protest laws are to be operated in practice by police officers, who are dealing with a growing and ever more complex statute book. But I wonder what he thinks about the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that the powers already exist to require and direct people to remove a mask, which could be done to individuals. In the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, gives of everyone wearing a mask as a form of intimidatory uniform, what does he think about the fact that the power already exists? What is an officer to do, faced with those duplicative powers and offences?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
It is a fair question. I would only say that, generally speaking, if you have a large crowd and a significant number within it wearing masks, the chances of you telling them all to take them off are very limited. If I understand the proposal, it is to prevent people arriving at the march with a mask rather than having to deal with it once they arrive. If you have to deal with it, you will have to deal with it. That is the only thing I would say: having allowed people to mask up, you cannot then expect officers to deal with a crowd of 5,000 or 6,000—it is just impractical. That is the argument against it, but I understand why the argument is made.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I broadly agree with the excellent comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in moving this, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I was reminded, when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us of the exemptions, that retrospectively, having been arrested or having had your mask removed, or what have you, you can say, “I was wearing this mask for health reasons”, or for work reasons, or for religious observance. The fact that there are exemptions for those reasons and not for others indicates what a ridiculous situation it is. Why have those three things only as reasons why you are allowed to wear masks? Let us just think about it. At what work would you be allowed to wear a mask? Could you say, “Well, I deliver pizzas so I have a helmet on”? Everyone could then turn up wearing a helmet saying that it was to do with their work. That just does not make any sense.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too support the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that Clauses 118 to 120 should be removed altogether from the Bill.
My reasons are twofold. First, I regard it as wrong and unjustified to prohibit people from concealing their identities at demonstrations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said, let alone prohibiting anyone in a designated locality concealing their identity if they so wish. That is what the Bill does, as my noble friend Lord Strasburger pointed out. My second point is that the purpose of the clause can only be to enable the use of live facial recognition technology to monitor demonstrations, to enable the authorities to determine who is attending them and, frankly, to take action against them subsequently. I regard that as an offensive justification, certainly given the present state of the technology and the present lack of regulation of live facial recognition.
On the first reason, overall, the prohibition of individuals concealing their identity involves introducing a Big Brother role for the state that is unwelcome and foreign to our notions of democratic freedom. The power may not be Orwellian in scale, but it has nasty totalitarian echoes of Nineteen Eighty-Four. We should remember that the catchphrase of the dictatorship in that novel is, “Big Brother is watching you”, the justified implication being that state observation of individuals is a principal instrument in the toolkit of dictatorship.
No doubt that is the reason why the power to prohibit such concealment is hedged around in the Bill by the complicated regime of designated localities, exempted purposes and limited durations. Those limits on the prohibition of concealing identity are intended to act as a brake on the power, but, in fact, all the weaknesses—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strasburger, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and others—emphasise how far the power is a fetter on individual freedom.
I fully appreciate that the power to designate a locality under Clause 119 would arise only if a senior police officer reasonably believed that a protest was likely to involve, or has involved, the commission of offences, and that it would be expedient to exercise the power to prevent or limit the commission of offences. However, that must be measured against not only the seriousness of the offences to be avoided, as my noble friend Lord Strasburger pointed out, but the right of individuals to wear a disguise, which may be, as others have pointed out, a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke of protesters against the Iranian regime. What about journalists, of whatever political persuasion, who wish to report on a protest but do not want to be recognised by the protesters or the public? What about employees, who would rather not be recognised attending a protest by their employers? The employers may have a political objection to the cause that the protesters are pursuing. Any figure who may be publicly recognisable who wishes to take part in, or even just attend, a protest, and wishes not to be recognised, may legitimately have that right to conceal their identity. What about parents who do not want to be recognised at a protest by their children, or adult children who do not want to be recognised at a protest by their parents?
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, relied on the public protests of Emmeline Pankhurst and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly objected to that comparison. There were countless other suffragettes who did not want friends or family to know of their support for, or activity as, suffragettes in protests because they might disagree with their family, parents, husbands, wives or friends, or simply out of concern for their own safety. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, expressed the position of ordinary citizens who wish to keep their identities private. I go further: in peacetime, it is the right of people to keep their identities private. The state would have to justify any limit on that power, and it has not done that.
We all agree that everyone has a right to protest but we must all acknowledge that protests can, and often do, involve the commission of offences by some. But the fact that protest may involve, or be likely to involve, the commission of offences by some people does not justify the police or the state in denying everybody in the designated locality the right to conceal their identities. This prohibition says to people that if you take part in or attend the protest, or are in the locality covered by the designation, you must be recognisable. I say to the Minister that that is an unjustifiable arrogation of power by the state. It must be justified by the Government if they wish to legislate for it, and they have not gone anywhere near justifying that arrogation of power.
My second reason for opposing this clause is that the prohibition on concealment of a citizen’s identity can have only the one purpose of enabling them to be monitored on camera, with a view to being identified later. Let us examine that. At its most benign, the power may be directed only against those who commit offences. Where it is for that limited purpose, it can be argued that preventing offences by the persons identified on camera may be a legitimate exercise of the power of the state, but I will repeat the points made by my noble friend Lord Strasburger on that. Just as police officers justify surveillance, so this power, if it were sufficiently defined and limited, might be justifiable, but the purposes of surveillance in the Bill go much further and unacceptably so. A dictatorial state may regard it as permissible to identify supporters of a particular view, political party or cause for the purpose of keeping them under further surveillance; worse still, branding them as trouble-makers for the future; or, at the extreme, taking action against them, ranging from pulling them in for questioning to arrest and unlawful imprisonment.
We have seen abuse of powers such as that in countries all over the world; the country that is currently under consideration is Iran, but it has happened in many others. We prevent abuse of power only by being astute to limit police powers and state infringement of individual liberties in the first place. This is not just an argument about live facial recognition technology, which my noble friend considered—we will discuss that more later—but an important argument about the legitimate limits on state power. Clauses 118 to 120 come nowhere near falling within those limits, even had they been tightly drawn—which they are not, as my noble friend and others have pointed out. For that reason, these clauses really ought to go.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these stand part notices. However, we on these Benches are unable to support her as we have general support for Clauses 118 to 120.
The clauses address a very real and increasingly familiar problem in modern protest policing: the deliberate concealment of identity to frustrate lawful policing and avoid accountability for criminal acts. I am sure that all noble Lords have seen videos circulating on the news and online of protests where large groups of people arrive masked or disguising their identity. Often, the only reason for that is to embolden themselves and each other to commit offences, knowing that their identification and subsequent prosecution will be next to impossible. This undermines both public confidence and the rule of law.
Clause 118 creates a relatively tightly drawn offence that would apply only where a locality has been designated by the police because there is a reasonable belief that a protest is likely to involve, or has involved, criminality. It is not a blanket ban on face coverings. Rather, the clause provides clear statutory defences for those wearing items for health reasons, religious observance or work-related purposes. I do not have concerns that these defences may be abused, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide some assurances as to how he intends that this will not be the practical reality.
Clauses 119 and 120 provide for necessary safeguards and structures relating to the powers of Clause 118. They stipulate that designation must be time limited, based on a reasonable belief and authorised at an appropriate level. There are explicit requirements to notify the public of the designation, the nature of the offence and the period for which it applies. These safeguards are consistent with other provisions of the Public Order Act that relate to police powers to impose conditions on assemblies and processions.
Removing these clauses would make policing protests even more difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined. Offenders who attend protests with the primary intent to commit crimes, whether related to the protest topic or not, will be able to evade justice more easily. The vast majority of peaceful protesters are unfairly associated with disorder that they did not cause. Effective policing protects the right to protest by isolating and deterring criminal behaviour within it. For those reasons, we cannot support the stand part notices in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling her intention to remove Clauses 118 to 120. The Committee is aware of the purpose of those clauses. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra, for the broad principle of the clauses.
I start by referring the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to the front page of the Bill. She will see that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint—which is me—has made the statement that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, which answers the first point that she put to me.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. I am glad to hear him restate his commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. He will know that that statement at the beginning of any Bill is not a certificate of compliance but a belief in the compliance of the contents of the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend could help me understand whether there has been any assessment in the department of measures such as this in the hands of a future Government who do not share his commitment to human rights and how such powers might be used.
On the issue of having powers to limit expression when offences are taking place, as my noble friend said a couple of moments ago, I remind him that in Clause 119, which is the mechanism for designation, the test is not that offences are taking place; it includes preventing the possibility of offences. In relation to compliance, he will know that any limits on convention rights must be proportionate, yet the test for designation in Clause 119 is not proportionality but expedience. Can my noble friend help the Committee understand why the human rights language of proportionality has been substituted for the test of expedience?
Finally, can my noble friend say why protest has been singled out in this way and not, for example, carnivals, religious prayer vigils or other gatherings of people where they might conceal their identity?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There were a number of points there. If my noble friend will allow me, I intend to answer the points made during the course of the debate. I say to her straightaway that we have published our analysis of the ECHR obligations; I can refer her to it. I will ensure that if she does not have it to hand, I will send it to her. It is published and is available for that.
As I will come on to in a moment, the rights that we are seeking in this piece of legislation for protesters, the community, the Government and police forces are measured in a way that I believe is acceptable. In recent years, policing large-scale protests has posed significant challenges; the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that. While most participants exercise their rights peacefully and lawfully, a small minority have engaged in criminal acts while concealing their identity. It is because the police have highlighted this issue with existing powers to identify those committing offences during protests that we have brought these issues forward. It is essential that the police can identify those committing offences during protests, not only to ensure accountability and justice but to protect peaceful demonstrators and the wider public from harm.
As a whole, Clauses 118 to 120 strike a careful balance. This will not apply to all protests. It applies only to protests that have been designated by a senior police officer of inspector rank or above. In addition, as was mentioned by a number of contributors to the debate, although the police currently have powers to remove face coverings in designated areas, they themselves have said to us—this goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—that those measures are not always effective in the context of managing protests. People often comply but then replace a face covering later, which is difficult to monitor in large gatherings. The new offence addresses this by making it unlawful to wear a face covering once a locality has been designated by a police officer—not by a Minister or by the Government—in the light of upholding rights as a whole.
That senior police officer, who will be at least of the rank of inspector, must reasonably believe that a protest is likely to occur, that it is likely to lead to criminal behaviour—that is the critical point, which comes to the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others—and that it is necessary to act to prevent or reduce such offences. That is an important caveat, not the Nineteen Eighty-Four dystopia that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seems to—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In a moment. It is not a Nineteen Eighty-Four dystopia, me becoming Orwellian or the Government becoming Big Brother and being all-seeing. It is about potential criminal activity where a police officer—not the Government, this House or the House of Commons—determines that this action should be taken. If a police officer determines that that designation needs to occur at that space and time, that is a reasonable thing, allowing protests but also stopping criminal behaviour.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I simply want to ask him this question: how far have the Government stress-tested these clauses against the test posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti? Under the auspices of a future Government less benign than this Labour Government—whom I respect, and he knows that—to what extent has that stress-testing tested, for instance, how far the promotion of police officers to the rank of inspector may produce benign results, or how far the results could be Orwellian? I do not suggest that this Government are Orwellian. My suggestion is that there is potential, in these clauses as drawn, for bad consequences.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will say two things to the noble Lord in our defence. His presumption assumes that a police force in five years’ time will be dominated by right-wing Conservatives, Reform members or Socialist Workers Party members, who instruct the police force to instigate that designated area. I happen to believe— I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would agree with me—that the police are independent of government, they have integrity, and they determine policies based on legislation.
This does not give a police officer the power to be a political commissar, whether of right or left, but gives the police the power to say, “There is potentially criminal action in this designated space; therefore, in this space we need to ensure that we can remove face coverings”. If there is another Government who he fears in the future—all of us may fear different Governments of different authoritarian natures—I guess that they will have won an election and will have 400 or so Members of Parliament, and they can pass what the heck they like anyway.
Therefore, there is an argument to say to the noble Lord that his fears are undermining the integrity and the independence of the police force, and all I am doing in this legislation is giving the police the power to take action should they, as the police, determine that they want to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, mentioned that it does not require someone to know they are committing the offence. Clause 119(2) requires the police to notify in writing that the designation has been made, the nature of the offence, the locality to which the designation applies and the period for which it applies. So it could even be a designation in writing for a limited time and in a limited place, but it is important that we do so.
A number of noble colleagues have raised religious and medical exemptions and further loopholes. The purpose of the new offence is, as I have said, to prevent protesters concealing their identity in order to avoid conviction for criminal activity in the designated place.
The measure does provide a reverse legal burden on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they wore a face covering for work purposes, or religious or health reasons. But, as with any charge, that is a defence in the Bill, in the future Act, in law, that allows people to say, “I am a paint sprayer”, or that they were seeking to prevent illness that might cause further illness if they did not wear a mask, or that, potentially, they had a religious reason to wear a mask. That is a defence in the event of any charge being made. But, again, it is a defence at the time when the police officer might well say to an individual that that mask needs to be removed.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
Be that as it may, what does the Minister say to people in all the other categories which are not mentioned in the clause as exemptions? People who have work reasons or marital reasons or whatever are not mentioned as exemptions; what do you say to them about attending protests? Are they just to avoid protests on that basis?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are designations that we have set down in law and there are designations that are not set down in law, but the measure is a proportionate one that the police can undertake, and in the event of an individual knowing that that is happening, they can accordingly take their own measures and decide to either protest or not protest. That does not curtail the right to protest.
The measure does not ban face coverings at every protest. An individual can go to a protest; they can wear a face covering for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, has outlined, and only if the police believe that criminal actions could be taken is that area designated. Then it is a matter for the individual, and I believe a majority of peaceful, legitimate protests will not be captured by this legislation, and the police must take great—
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister is making a very powerful case but I ask him to focus on the defences which he has recognised. I do not understand why it is a defence for me to show that I wore a face mask because of my religion, but it is not a defence for me to prove, the onus being on me, that I wore a face mask because I was protesting against the Iranian regime and I have family in Iran.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes. We have drawn a line in the defences. I come back to the principle that the power to be used by the police officer, not the Government, is to determine this in the event of suspected criminality occurring.
There may not be, in the case that the noble Lord has mentioned, the need for that designation, because the police may make a judgment, which is their judgment to make, that a protest outside the Iranian embassy, for example, would not lead to potential criminal activity. That is the judgment that we are making. That is the line that we have drawn. I see the point that he has made, but that is the defence that I can put to him today. Because—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I very much support what the Minister is saying. The only question is: will the police have the power not to require this person to take his mask off if they accept his view that that would cause some danger to him or his family in Iran?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The exemptions in the Bill are very clear, and I have already talked about those that relate to religious, work or health reasons. Police officers will make a judgment on those issues on the ground and, as in the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, they have a significantly difficult job to do at any demonstration.
If I can give any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, all the offences under the Bill are currently under review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, as part of the review that he is undertaking, to be completed by spring 2026. I have no doubt that he will pay close attention to the comments that are made in this debate and make an assessment to government about whether the points made by noble Lords are ones that he should reflect on. I would say to the Committee—
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I am astonished by that statement. Is the Minister saying that we should knowingly pass faulty legislation because we know that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will pick it up and sort it out later?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord opposes the clauses; I do not. We have a difference of opinion on that. This is what Parliament is about. On Report we may have a vote on it. I have heard the support of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Blencathra, and others. I will seek their support in a Division and the House will determine what the House of Commons has already determined, which is whether those clauses are right or wrong for inclusion.
What I am saying is that, on all occasions, there are things that can be looked at and examined. If the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are worthy of consideration, we will have opportunities to have those reviewed, because the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is going to produce a report for the Home Secretary on protest generally. I cannot say what he is going to say or what recommendations he is going to make, or whether we will accept those recommendations. I simply say to the noble Lord today that I believe Clauses 118, 119 and 120 should stand. He does not. I believe that they are right and proper and effective and give powers to the police to do business in a co-ordinated way to prevent crime. There are points that have been made today which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will reflect on. He may make recommendations to government accordingly, and we may make issues later on. But I say to him now, and to anybody else in the Committee, that these powers are ones that the police have asked for to ensure better policing to prevent crime. They are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, in my view. They are proportionate and they provide a mechanism to ensure that people at a protest who commit crimes do not commit those crimes without any understanding.
I will make one final point before giving way to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, also talked about facial recognition. He will know that, later on in this Bill, we will deal with issues to do with facial recognition. He will also know that the Government are currently undertaking a consultation on facial recognition, pending comments from anybody who wishes to make them and pending, therefore, better regulation of how any facial recognition is utilised in later legislation at some future point post this Bill. So, whatever concerns the noble Lord has on facial recognition, I believe it is still a valuable tool for policing, but we can examine them at some point downstream and there will be an opportunity to test his views versus the House’s at some point.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his detailed responses and for his patience in taking interventions. Could he in a moment deal with my point about why the word “expedient” has been used in Clause 119 rather than “proportionate”? He himself has talked of proportionality many times, and of course he will know that the test for lawful interference with convention rights is proportionality rather than expedience. And, in the light of comments made in this Committee by noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who does not oppose the provision outright, would he consider, between now and Report, adding an additional defence of fear of reprisal to the health provision, for example?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The wording in the Bill is the wording the Government have agreed. That is the position that we have taken. We may have a disagreement on that. If my noble friend wishes to put an amendment down on Report to change that wording, that is a matter for her. She has made a further suggestion about a further defence. Those are matters that I suggest should be considered by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. If she wishes to expediate that quickly, she has the opportunity along with anybody else to table an amendment on Report. But the Government have given serious consideration to this and Clauses 118, 119 and 120 are the result of those considerations. They are at the request of the police, they are proportionate, and they are, in my view, compliant with human rights. I commend them to the House and in a gentle way urge the noble Baroness, either today or in the future, not to seek to withdraw them.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I happen to support these clauses, but I have the same concern as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this has been drawn rather too narrowly and there may be areas that may have to be considered.
Secondly, the noble Lord is quite right: the clauses give this power to the police to prevent crimes being committed. What happens if the police get it wrong? We all know what happened with the sus law and reasonable grounds to suspect: they suspected and stopped people again and again, and nothing was actually worth suspecting. I do not want an answer; I want the possibility of considering what will happen if the police get it wrong. We have the Birmingham question still; I do not want to talk about it, because there are inquiries going on. What measures does the noble Lord want to address the particular conundrum that is there?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I add this, to save time. I know people are trying to expand the number of conditions, but I would like us not to run away with the assumption that the work face mask makes sense. Intuitively, it does, but I do not understand the paint sprayer who is at a protest wearing their mask. They are either at the protest or at work; I am not sure why they are wearing the mask at the protest. I do not understand that juxtaposition, and it may be for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to consider as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, time is pressing for the response, but that is largely due to interventions. I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that the main objective of the police in this process will be to ensure that there is a peaceful demonstration, with no trouble for the community at large. If the police overpolice an issue, that is potentially an area where trouble can commence. So I give the judgment to the police to do this in a proper and effective way.
A number of comments have been made, and we will always reflect on those comments, but I stick, particularly because of time, to the contention that the clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I cannot tell you how much energy and self-control it has taken to stay seated, with all these interventions and comments. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his very kind comments and the photographs, which have obviously brought back a lot of very nice, happy memories. I thank him for that. The other aspect to my having to exercise loads of self- control in staying sitting down is that I get very agitated —very irritated, in fact—and I scribble all over the papers I have in front of me, which sometimes makes it difficult to reply fully. I am going to do my best, and I beg the patience of the House in allowing me to go through all my scribbles.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger and Lord Marks, for their support. I am very grateful. Obviously, this is a day that will go in my diary: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, actually agreed with something I said. That is quite rare.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I did not necessarily agree that the Baroness, Lady Jones, should be mentioned in the same sentence as Martin Luther King and Emmeline Pankhurst—I just wanted to make that clear.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord. I would like to say, by the way, that I did go to Aldermaston, but my first real protest was in 1968 when I was 18. I went on a CND rally, and it was peaceful—at least, I think it was; I cannot remember.
It is not difficult to counter the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He talked about my being brave enough—perhaps he did not use the word “brave”—to go to protests without a mask, but, of course, I am a highly privileged white female and he is a highly privileged white male. It is not for us to say who might be vulnerable and who might not, and who might fear reprisals and who might not. Let us remember that there are people who live in fear of other people, and those people could easily be deterred from going to protests.
On the points from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the Minister, the fact is that the police have enough powers already. If they really are requesting this, surely the Government should have a little bit more pragmatism about what they are passing. The fact that the Minister is so happy that two Tories are supporting him is something I honestly find quite shocking. If they are the only people he can rouse to support him in your Lordships’ House, that really says something—and I do not mean for any of you to stand up and support him: it is not necessary.
On the issue of the police getting confused, because the legislation at the moment is very confused—there is so much of it—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is absolutely right. For example, Steve Bray, the man who does all the loud Brexit protests in Parliament Square—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will thank Members on this side not to comment on my speech if possible.
Apparently last week the police tried to close Mr Bray down in spite of the court ruling that said that what he was doing was legal. They made, I am told, the absurd and fatuous claim that the judgment had been repealed. That is completely wrong; it is complete nonsense. That is what the police said. They are confused. I do not blame the police for that; I think that the law on protest has now reached such proportions that they really cannot be expected to stay up with what is happening. The Minister said that the police are going to make these decisions and that we have to trust the police and have lots of confidence in them, but if you make bad law, you are responsible and not the police. You are responsible for passing laws that are, first, unnecessary and, secondly, plain wrong. The police have to try to put that into practice, and that is not fair.
I think I might have said everything actually.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I think this is terrible; these clauses should be thrown out or should at least be rewritten, because they are not useful. They are not useful to people who are in genuine fear of their lives but who want to protest about something, and they are not useful for the police, who already have the powers. I asked in my opening speech whether the Minister could point me to the gap in legislation. If the police have really asked for these clauses, then they do not even know the legislation properly.
Very unwillingly—and I am glad the Minister suggested I bring this back on Report—I will withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower
“(3A) For the purposes of the defence in subsection (3), a person does not have a reasonable excuse by way of an honestly or sincerely held political belief, irrespective of the nature of the belief.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a person cannot claim a reasonable excuse for the possession of a pyrotechnic article at a protest because of a sincerely held political belief.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, ever since the Supreme Court ruled in the DPP v Ziegler in 2021, the state of public order and protest law in this country has been nothing less than a confused mess. As Policy Exchange noted in its report, ‘Might is Right?’, we have entered an era of increasingly disruptive protests. We have seen severe disruption from the likes of Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and pro-Palestinian groups. My amendments together seek to restore clarity and proportionality to our public order law following the deeply troubling consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ziegler.
The starting point must be an uncomfortable truth: the law as it now stands has tilted too far in favour of those who seek to justify criminality and serious disruption on the basis of contentious political beliefs. That tilt did not arise from legislation passed by Parliament but from judicial interpretation. It has been Parliament’s clear intention to prevent such actions occurring in the name of protest—that is evident in the legislation that has been passed in recent years—but the will of Parliament has been, to at least some degree, undermined by the judiciary, most notably in the Ziegler ruling, which has elevated protest-related rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights above the practical ability of the state to prevent intimidation, obstruction and damage. I argue that the proportionality analysis mandated by the Human Rights Act 1998 has migrated from being a safeguard of last resort to being a routine defence for conduct that Parliament has plainly intended to criminalise.
In effect, the courts are being invited to weigh the importance of a cause against the harm done to the public. That is not the rule of law; it is moral relativism dressed up as jurisprudence. These amendments offer a direct and refreshingly simple response.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 382H, to which the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Hogan- Howe, have added their names, covers the use in this area of the law of the defence of lawful or reasonable excuse in relation to public order offences.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said, the law is in a state of incoherence at the moment. It is important, of course, that the law in this area adequately reflects the right to protest, about which there is no issue among any of your Lordships. It also must reflect the interests of third parties significantly affected by protests. The law must be sufficiently clear for the police to be able to know what their powers are and to exercise them sensibly and lawfully. Finally, the law has to be sufficiently clear that members of the public think that it reflects the various interests reasonably involved in the whole question of what lawful protest is and its limits.
The decision in Ziegler was, I think it is broadly accepted, a wrong turning by the Supreme Court; it is accepted by people across political persuasions. I too, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, very much praise the long and persistent work of Policy Exchange to expose the shortcomings of that decision and the uncertainty it has created in terms of the application of the law. It is never easy for a court to decide what is a reasonable or lawful excuse, but the amendment we have put down assumes that there is sufficient evidence for there to be an offence in the first place. That is a significant rider, of course, but it also provides, in proposed subsection (2), that there is no excuse for the conduct if:
“(a) it is intended to intimidate, provoke, inconvenience or otherwise harm members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity, or (b) it is designed to influence the government or public opinion by subjecting any person, or their property, to a risk, or increased risk, of loss or damage”.
What is perhaps somewhat unusual about this amendment, as opposed to the other amendments in the group, is subsection (5) of the proposed new clause, which says:
“For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, this section must be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, the European convention and its incorporation in our law by the Human Rights Act has very much changed, or potentially changed, the analysis of all sorts of legal situations, particularly in this area. The common law provides that there are certain rights that we recognise, such as the right to free speech or freedom of association. But, as those of us who remember our legal lectures will be told, those rights exist only in so far as they are not made unlawful by some other intervention, either of the courts or of Parliament. Those rights do not trump anything but, none the less, nobody would doubt that we have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
One of the problems about the European convention is that it states rights, and some of the rights are absolute and some of the rights are qualified, such as—relevant to this particular area of the law—Articles 10 and Articles 11. Therefore, it does not provide an absolute trump card that you can never, as it were, contravene a law on the basis that you have an absolute right to freedom of expression under Article 10 or a right to peaceful assembly under Article 11. In fact, the European court in Strasbourg has not said that it is not open to individual countries to decide what are reasonable limits of those rights.
Where I think Ziegler went seriously wrong was, as it were, ducking the issue by simply saying that, quite apart from what Parliament has said about reasonable excuse and the like, a particular court has to decide proportionality for itself, whether that is by a judge or a jury. In particular, paragraph 59 said:
“Determination of the proportionality … with ECHR rights is a fact-specific enquiry which requires the evaluation of the circumstances in the individual case”.
With great respect, that is not very helpful for a court in deciding whether an offence has been committed or whether a defence is permitted in law.
In fact, I think it went too far because the European Court of Human Rights does not say that individual legislatures should not attempt to legislate by striking the balance, to reflect those matters that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. For example, in the case of Laurijsen v Netherlands, in 2024, the court said that,
“physical conduct purposely obstructing traffic and the ordinary course of life in order to seriously disrupt the activities carried out by others is not at the core of that freedom as protected by Article 11 of the Convention”.
In other words, Strasbourg does not say that Parliament cannot legislate in this space if it thinks it appropriate to reflect the various matters that are so important in deciding what the limits of lawful protest are.
My amendment—and I support other amendments in this group—would make the law a great deal clearer. It says that you should not invoke some vague notion of proportionality; you simply decide whether there is a lawful excuse, in accordance with the fairly straight- forward provisions we have contained in our amendment, and you may remove from your considerations any of the vagueness of proportionality that emanates from the European court at Strasbourg. That is because we can take it that Parliament has decided that, in all the circumstances, it has taken into account all those rights—whether they be rights of common law or rights in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights—and it has satisfied itself, just as the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, satisfied himself about this Bill, that it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is clarity; that is what this amendment seeks.
I imagine that the Minister may have in his notes, when responding to this group, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. By the look on his face, I am not wrong about that. I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and am sure that he will come up with some extremely sensible suggestions. However, we know that the law is not in a good place at the moment and that protest is a particular feature—and why not at the moment, when there are, after all, so many things to protest about? We need the law to be clearer sooner than even the diligence of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, may produce. I therefore suggest that the Minister, who I know will be taking on board all the ideas in this space, should consider carefully whether we can remedy this wrong and make the law clearer, so that all involved in this sphere of law can know what the law is.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the more I listen to the debate this afternoon, the more worried I am getting. It seems to me that, over recent years, we have successively tightened up regulations around protests, including quite peaceful protests, making it harder and harder for people to express publicly their deep concerns around a whole range of issues. I am not sure that we need more clarity; that is for judges and juries to determine on the details of a particular case. The whole principle of the jury system is that we are judged by our peers and that, if we have undertaken some activity which has brought us before the courts, it is for other people like us to determine on the particular instances. They can take into account the culture and context, in a way that is impossible to do by way of legislation. I am quite wary about over- specifying here. Sometimes clarity is not necessarily the best thing to achieve.
I have one final small point. A number of amendments in this group and others refer to processions. In the area I grew up in, the Whit Friday processions in Mossley and Saddleworth in Greater Manchester are a thing of beauty and a joy for ever. In whole towns and villages, many roads are closed for much of the day, clearly causing massive disruption to people who would otherwise be travelling on those through roads. I want some assurances from the Minister that there is no intention for Bill to be used to prevent traditional religious processions or other processions simply because they happen to close the road for a while.
I think of the procession in Liverpool city centre a few months ago, when that dreadful incident happened; I guess the bloke driving his car felt that his journey was being impeded. But people must have the right to hold their processions to celebrate the victories of their football teams—even in Liverpool, which, as a Mancunian, I struggle with—to have civic processions, football processions and, please, in Greater Manchester, religious processions. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that nothing in this Bill could be used to limit those kinds of peaceful, traditional celebrations and processions.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The amendments in this group are motivated by understandable concern about the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ziegler case, which is [2021] UKSC 23. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Faulks, made powerful submissions relating to that case.
The Committee may wish to be reminded that the Supreme Court reconsidered the statements made in Ziegler in the abortion services case, which was [2022] UKSC 32. Further guidance on the issues in Ziegler was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, as the Lord Chief Justice in the Cuciurean case, which is [2022] 3 WLR 446. The Supreme Court said, in the abortion services case, that it is not for the jury or the magistrates in each individual case to assess whether the conduct of the defendant is protected by human rights law. That was the concern, as I understand it, of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester suggested that that is highly desirable, but that is not the law.
In the abortion services case, in paragraphs 63 to 66, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, who is the President of the Supreme Court, spoke for a seven person Supreme Court. It was an enlarged court because of the importance of the issue. He addressed the principles. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, said at paragraph 63:
“The first question was whether, in a case where the exercise of rights under articles 9 to 11 of the Convention is raised by the defendant to a criminal prosecution, there must always be an assessment of the proportionality of any interference with those rights on the facts of the individual case. The answer is no”.
In paragraph 64, he said:
“The second question was whether, where an offence is liable to give rise to an interference with the exercise of rights under articles 9, 10 or 11 of the Convention, it is necessary for the ingredients of the offence to include (or be interpreted as including) the absence of reasonable or lawful excuse in order for a conviction to be compatible with the Convention rights. The answer is no”.
Paragraph 65, says:
“The third question was whether it is possible for the ingredients of an offence in themselves to ensure the compatibility of a conviction with the Convention rights under articles 9, 10 and 11. The answer is yes”.
The position under the law is that the prosecution will say that Parliament has enacted a specific offence; that is the law of the land, and it is simply not open to the defendant to say that they are entitled to seek to overturn the ingredients of the offence by reference to convention rights. The law of the land is set out in the criminal offence. Therefore, respectfully, 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—notwithstanding Articles 9 to 11 of the convention.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. First, I say to the right reverend Prelate that the peaceful religious processions that he had in mind, such as those at Easter, were not the sort of processions that the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police had in mind when he recently said something to the effect of him having seen an appalling increase in aggro and violence in demonstrations, and that:
“The intolerable has become normalised”.
That is quite different from the peaceful processions that the right reverend Prelate had in mind.
Before I turn to my amendments, I want to say how much I enjoyed the Minister’s winding-up speech in the previous debate. He was in absolutely top form, especially in his demolition of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I suspect that most of the best bits in his speech were not written by his officials; I shall treasure them. I hope that I do not become a victim of such a wonderful oration against me.
I have two amendments in this group. The first is quite small, simple and titchy, and the second is slightly more complicated.
Clause 122(2) says:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they—
(a) had a good reason for climbing on the specified memorial,
(b) were the owner or occupier of the specified memorial, or
(c) had the consent of the owner or occupier”
to do so. My first amendment would delete the general excuse of having a “good reason”. The only defences left for a person charged with an offence under Clause 122 would be that they were the owner or occupier of the memorial or had the consent of the owner or occupier to climb on it. I wonder about “occupier”; I presume that that is to cover memorials that are not just statues but buildings, such as the Hall of Memory in Birmingham. I would be grateful for a slight elucidation on what is meant by the occupier of a memorial.
I turn to the proposed new clause in my Amendment 378B. It is simple in principle but looks a bit complicated. It simply reproduces the operative test, as well as the definition of “community”, in the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 and would put them in the Bill, giving them primary law status. This would improve legal certainty and parliamentary scrutiny.
Many clauses in the Bill, and many of the amendments, speak of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”.
We may conclude from this that the disruption must be pretty serious indeed to qualify as “serious”. However, that is not the case since the previous Government passed the 2023 regulations, which defined and, some commentators would say, diluted the concept of serious disruption.
In plain terms, my proposed new clause would place in the Bill all the illustrative examples and interpretive tests introduced in the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations. As I suggested, those regulations make amendments to provisions in the Public Order Act 1986 concerning the meaning of the expression
“serious disruption to the life of the community”.
Section 12 of the Act gives the police the power to impose conditions on people organising and taking part in public processions. A senior police officer can exercise this power if they reasonably believe that a procession may result in
“serious disruption to the life of the community”.
Serious disruption to the life of the community is not defined in the Act itself, but Section 12(2A) sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples that may constitute serious disruption.
The 2023 regulations refine that list. The amendments to Section 12(2A) and (2B) of the Act also provide that, when considering whether a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption, a senior police officer must take into account the disruption that may occur regardless of whether the procession is held, as well as the disruption that may result from the procession, and may take into account the cumulative disruption that may be caused by more than one public procession or public assembly in the same area. The amendments also provide that the term “community” extends to anyone who may be affected by the public procession regardless of whether they live or work in the vicinity of the procession. They state that “disruption” is anything
“that is more than minor”,
in particular to
“the making of a journey”
or access to goods and services. The regulations define this as
“access to any essential goods or any essential service”,
including access to
“the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel … a system of communication … a place of worship … a transport facility … an educational institution, or … a service relating to health”.
That is what the regulations say in redefining
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
in the Act. Although my amendment looks complicated, it simply suggests that those regulations should be incorporated into the Bill as primary legislation. Transferring the regulations into the Bill would bring legal clarity—the police, courts and organisers would read the statutory test directly from the Act rather than a separate statutory instrument, reducing uncertainty about where the operative tests are located. It would mirror the stated purposes of the 2023 regulations to provide greater clarity. It would bring consistency of application—putting the tests in primary legislation would reduce the risk of interpretive divergence between different SIs or guidance and make the threshold for imposing conditions more visible to Parliament and the public. The cumulative effects would be preserved—the clause could, and should, reproduce the regulations’ treatment of cumulative effects so that multiple impacts are properly captured, as the regulations already contemplate cumulative assessment.
Of course, the Minister will say that embedding illustrative examples in primary law makes future policy adjustments harder and might require primary legislation and time to respond to unforeseen operational guidance. However, I suggest that retaining my proposed new clause, to secure clarity and parliamentary oversight but add a short delegated powers safeguard—a power to change it in future by regulations—would be perfectly okay.
I support Amendment 369A on pyrotechnics at protests tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower on the Front Bench, but it does not go far enough. I cannot think of any lawful excuse for possessing pyrotechnic articles while taking part in a protest. Protests are a vital part of our democratic life. They are a place for voices to be heard, grievances to be aired and change to be sought. But they are not a place for devices that can cause panic, injury or irreversible escalation. Pyrotechnics are designed to startle, burn, explode and smoke; they are not tools of peaceful persuasion. To allow a defence based on an honestly held political belief risks turning lawful protest into a dangerous theatre of risk and fear. Public safety must be paramount.
There are a few other things I could say about pyrotechnics at protests, but I will cut short my remarks in the interests of time. I see no justification whatever for anyone to have pyrotechnics at any protest or for there to be a lawful defence for it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support and have added my name to Amendment 382H. I also support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. My support is based on the concerns over and consequences of the Ziegler case. Noble Lords have said today that it was wrong in law, but that is not for me to say. The policy consequences for policing the streets of this country have been profound and negative, particularly in the area of public protest and disorder policing.
The Ziegler case was one of the simplest offences to prove in the criminal law. It was an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. There were only three parts to prove; it was wilful, it was obstruction and they were on a highway. That was the offence, and it is one of the simplest we have policed over the years. It became complex only when people alleged that there was a reasonable excuse—for which read “a political purpose”—for their obstruction of the highway.
In the past, all the police needed to prove was that it was a highway—which is well established in law—that it had been obstructed and, usually, that they had asked someone to move on and they had either returned or not moved. That was about as complicated as it was. But as soon as you have to import intent, recklessness or reasonable excuse, the offence starts to become more complex and the police have to think carefully before intervening. I know that in this House people sometimes talk about the police being careless with the law, reactive and reactionary—I am not talking about any individual; I am just saying, as a general comment, that it has been said—but my experience is that, on the whole, they try to get it right and to balance everybody’s rights, often in very difficult circumstances.
My reading of Ziegler is that the Supreme Court seemed to say that dealing with obstruction of the highway is far too simple when dealing with protesters—that it is okay for everybody else but for protesters it gets a little more complicated. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the convention rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, sometimes grouped together as the right to protest, constituted a lawful excuse, which means that before a person can be convicted for obstructing the highway, the prosecution must prove that a conviction would be a proportionate, and thus justified, interference with that person’s convention rights. The Ziegler judgment has caused very real difficulties for police in dealing with environmental and many other protests and, I argue, for judges in attempting to run trials fairly and efficiently and instruct juries about what must be proved.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to commend the noble Lords who have brought this amendment. I add my praise and gratitude for Policy Exchange in having led the charge on this. I benefited greatly from Richard Ekins’s report in producing my own review, which was published in May last year. One of the recommendations of my review was for the then Government—it falls now to this Government—to set out a clear plan to move on and clarify after the Ziegler judgment. There have been a number of pertinent cases since then. The Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Colston statue case has, in my understanding, made it clear that this is not an unqualified defence. Nevertheless, it has left a level of confusion, for magistrates and for the police, over more minor but still significant criminal damage, such as spraying paint on statues or throwing soup over a painting. This situation is highly complex and difficult for the police and the courts to navigate now. Leadership from the Government and Parliament is needed to put the matter right.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and in particular I draw attention to the excellent work of Professor Ekins and Policy Exchange in this area.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, observed in his opening remarks in respect of Amendment 382H, it is plain that the Supreme Court took a wrong turn in the Ziegler case. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, notes that a number of subsequent cases have touched on the finding in Ziegler and come to an apparently inconsistent conclusion, the most notable of those being DPP v Cuciurean and the Bristol Colston statue case. As the noble Lord, Lord Walney, observes, the Court of Appeal in that case found that the Ziegler judgment had prominently spilled over into trials concerning criminal damage. The Court of Appeal, in its criminal context, made it clear that the defence of lawful excuse was not available in that context, and that sits uneasily with the Supreme Court’s findings in Ziegler.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pre-eminent member of the Bar that he is, says that the law is tolerably clear and should survive with the embellishments of the subsequent cases. I am afraid that, in this context, for the reasons so ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, that is not adequate for the purposes of either the protesters or the police.
In my submission, Amendment 382H is a model amendment, in that it is clear and brief, and sets out with admirable clarity what it is seeking to do. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it would apply, across the gamut of all offences which contain a lawful excuse provision, the words,
“the excuse must be a lawful excuse or … must be a reasonable one”.
There are many areas across the canon of criminal law that can be engaged with protest that may give rise to this, thus the application of this amendment would be wide-ranging and provide considerable clarity.
Amendment 382H sets out, in proposed new subsection (2), when it is no excuse, and does so with great clarity. I submit that the various judges trying these cases would be greatly aided when making decisions in summary offences and when giving directions to juries on this area in the light of this amendment.
Finally, in proposed new subsection (5), the amendment directly addresses the provision in the Human Rights Act, which takes into account whether or not this is the exercise of a qualified right and provides that this provision is necessary in a democratic society. It therefore sits happily with the human rights arrangements, so ably highlighted by the Minister in his closing speech on the last group. For those reasons, I hope that this amendment is brought back on Report. I, for one, will heartily support it.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the War Memorials Trust. I am grateful to the Government for including Clause 122 in the Bill and what I have to say goes to my noble friends’ Amendments 369A and 369B.
I have some quick questions for the Minister. First, where can I find the Government’s definition of a war memorial? It is clearly important that there is one. Secondly, I make the point that certain war memorials are specifically designed as immersive experiences or paths people can walk or even climb on—examples are the Carnoustie war memorial and the tomb of the unknown warrior. Can I assume that the walker or climber will have to rely on the defence that he or she had the consent of the owner or occupier of the war memorial? Thirdly, on Clause 122, I ask the Minister— I know we will come to this in more detail in due course—why Schedule 12 is confined to 24 war memorials, which I think are simply the top 24 from the national heritage list. He will know that there are tens of thousands of war memorials across the UK and that many more than 24 are very important and in prominent positions, and therefore arguably just as vulnerable as those listed in Schedule 12.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I raise a point on Amendment 378B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Unless I have missed something in that lengthy amendment, the effect of it might well be to interfere with the exercise of the right to picket in an industrial dispute. The right to picket is protected by Section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and, in a lawful industrial dispute, by Section 219. I doubt that that was the intention of the mover of the amendment. Is it possible to have some clarity on that point?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is my intention, and I believe it is the case—possibly the Minister will confirm—that my amendment would not change one iota. It would simply incorporate all the current regulations from the 2023 regulations and move them verbatim into the Bill, making it a primary case. It would not change any of the provisions at all. If there are technical drafting issues then they can be corrected later, but there is no intention to change any of the concept.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments and will speak to a point that comes up in Amendment 378B. Because it arises in 378B, I am raising it now, but it affects the subsequent amendments in the next few groupings, particularly my amendments. It all flows from Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Essentially, there is some concern that so much discretion will be left to the police. It is clear that, for one reason or another, the police have not been effective in controlling protesters to date. Noble Lords may have seen the video clip on social media showing Gideon Falter, CEO of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, being told by police he was “quite openly Jewish”, and therefore causing a breach of the peace.
We are in the middle of assessing the appalling decisions by the West Midlands police, who consulted a large number of mosques, including some very radical ones that housed an imam who stated that women should not leave their home without their husband’s permission. These people were consulted on whether or not Israeli tourists should be allowed to visit the West Midlands. The police claimed they had consulted the Jewish community in the area: that was not true. It is clear they realised that the Israeli tourists would be in danger, but they decided to ban them from coming on the false excuse that they would be the aggressors. So they turned the victims into the guilty ones.
Your Lordships may have seen another video clip— on Friday or Sunday night—outside an Israeli-owned restaurant in Notting Hill called Miznon. There were some very aggressive and intimidating protesters and the police simply stood there. There may have been one arrest, but that was it. So innocent employees, eaters, diners and members of the public faced a very unpleasant situation.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of Miznon and Erev in Notting Hill. There have been a number of protests outside that restaurant, which is actually on my street. The owners of the restaurant and the residents who use it, including me, have been subjected to the vilest form of antisemitism, and the police have done nothing.
So I support this and will ask the Minister a number of questions about it. It is not enough to say that the senior officer should be responsible for this; much clearer principles and rules are needed around what is and is not acceptable, if the police are evidently—based on recent events—not capable of exercising that judgment themselves. So I support this and hope that the Minister will take it seriously.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will confine what I say to a few points in response to some of the speakers we have heard from.
I found myself in considerable agreement with the general concerns about balance expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. It seems to me that, in some of the consideration of these clauses, we have lost sight of what we agreed in Committee last week. Everybody agreed that questions for the courts and others about considering breaches of public order law—as well as the introduction of new public order provisions—do raise the question of balance between, on the one hand, the right to protest and, on the other, the rights and freedoms of others.
I will resist the temptation to respond in detail to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in spite of his claim that he relished the Minister’s demolition of my arguments about stress-testing this legislation for the future and not relying on the benign intentions of this Government. I have concerns about the noble Lord’s amendments; I am sure that the Minister will deal with them. They include questions about what “serious disruption” is and what should amount to “essential services” within the meaning of the Act, as well as he whole question of cumulative disruption, to which we will turn later.
Those concerns—and the Minister’s comments in the previous group on the publication of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—raise an important issue about the timing of this legislation, compared with the timing of the noble Lord’s expected report. I share the confidence that he will consider all these issues with great care, but might it not have been better had the review come first and the introduction of this legislation and its consideration in this House come second? From what the Minister said in his speech on the previous group, I take it that it is the Government’s present intention to give further consideration to public order law in the light of the noble Lord’s expected report. If that is the case—and if that attention will be given objectively and carefully, and then lead to such legislation as is necessary—that may be the best we can do with the timing that we have now. But my comments stand about the order in which this has been done stand.
I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I do not propose to give him many hours of pleasure in listening again to arguments about balance as a matter of law; however, I do repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, about how confident he is that police officers, including senior police officers, always get the balance right. That is a difficult assertion to make or defend. I am not suggesting that he went as far as that, but it is very important, not only for the Government but for us as parliamentarians, to consider the possibility that police officers sometimes fail to get the balance right.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made that it is often a very difficult balance to strike. We need to be very careful in commenting on how the police should strike it and not place too much confidence in the police in the future and, in particular, in the event of changes in government that, as the noble Lord recognised, might be unwelcome to many of us. Nevertheless, they could be changes of an elected Government.
That brings me to Amendment 382H, which was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and elegantly presented by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I will draw the Committee’s attention to one problem. Proposed new subsection (5) is not simply definitional; it is designed to act—and would act, in some sense—as an ouster for the purposes of domestic courts of the effect of the convention rights. It uses the language of Article 11 when it states:
“For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, this section must be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
Article 11 requires that the rights that are respected
“are necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
If Parliament legislates that a section must be treated as necessary, it precludes within this jurisdiction any testing of the proposition that such provisions, as interpreted, are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That is the province of the European Court of Human Rights to consider. It is a requirement of the Human Rights Act that domestic courts here give effect to the European convention and interpret legislation, where they can, as compatible with the convention.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Of course, this is an amendment, so the Government will not have given the certification of compliance with the European convention. Were the Minister to accept the amendment and it to become part of the Bill, the Government could then certify that it did comply with the European convention and it would be unnecessary to put that particular provision in. But, as an amendment, it is making clear that that particular provision takes into account that there are convention rights and, notwithstanding those convention rights, the amendment is to have the effect that it does.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, that is a complicated justification of the inclusion of that subsection in the amendment. I just about understand what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is saying there. But were his amendment to be accepted, it would raise difficulties about the compliance or cohesion of that amendment with the European Convention on Human Rights. I leave the point there. It is for the Minister to deal with it. If he says he can accept the amendment, subject to later adjustment to take out that subsection, so be it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to respond to what has been a wide but, at the same time, restricted debate, if that makes sense.
The amendments deal principally with the reasonable excuse defences applicable to various public order and criminal damage-related offences. Amendments 369A and 369B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and others, would exclude a political belief from being considered a reasonable excuse or good reason under the new offences in Clauses 121 and 122.
My view is that this would narrow the scope of the statutory defences and reduce flexibility for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to consider individual circumstances, particularly given that political belief is a broad and loosely defined concept and not a term commonly used in legislation. The lack of clarity could create uncertainty in its application.
The amendments would also have wider operational implications. By prescribing what cannot constitute a defence, the amendments limit the discretion of the courts, the CPS and the police to make case-by-case judgments. This is important because it could restrict the operational independence of the police, the prosecutors and the judiciary, which must weigh factors such as motive and proportionality when deciding to take enforcement action or to prosecute. That goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendments, but the Government consider that the current provisions are sufficient and proportionate, and the defences, as drafted, ensure that enforcement and prosecution decisions are made proportionally and in line with the important human rights legislation and obligations that we adopt and accept.
Amendment 369AA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and I thank him for his comments—would remove the good reason defence in Clause 122. I say to the noble Lord simply that this defence is intended to cover circumstances which are also important. For example, it could be that someone needs to climb on a specified memorial to repair or clean it. We should not be criminalising people in such circumstances, but the acceptance of that amendment would mean that could, in theory, be the case.
Amendment 382D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to remove the reasonable excuse defence available to individuals charged with specific offences under the Public Order Act 2023 and Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. These offences include locking on to an object, tunnelling, or interfering with key national infrastructure. Again, the Government are of the view 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.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister responded to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and their understandable concerns about the protests outside the Israeli-owned restaurant in Notting Hill by saying that this is a matter for the police. Have the Government no position on whether it is acceptable for people who are dining in an Israeli-owned restaurant to be subject to abuse and intimidation of the sort that we have seen on London streets?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord did not take my comments in that vein. It is completely unacceptable for individuals to have their lives disrupted by that level of protest, but it is for the police on site to determine. I was not there on the night; I did not witness the protest. I read about the concerns prior to today, and during the course of this debate I have examined again the reports that have occurred. But it is for a police officer on site to determine. Under existing legislation, there are offences of harassment, of inciting violence and other offences and, as the noble Lord knows, because we have debated this at Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill to ensure that people can, with the police, determine a protest route and the regularity of a protest as part of the proposals in this legislation. I am not ducking the question; it is important that people have the right to live their lives in freedom, and to enjoy a restaurant meal. But I cannot be the police on the night, determining whether the offences that are potentially covered currently by law are exercised by the police. I hope the noble Lord will accept the comments that I have made. With that, I invite the noble Lord not to press the proposed amendments, and to revisit them should he so wish.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, to those who have supported my amendments and even to noble Lords who disagreed with them, because this discussion has laid down the real issue before us: who decides where the limits of protest lie —Parliament or the courts?
Much of the criticism rests on the claim that removing reasonable excuse defences is somehow draconian. I profoundly disagree. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that peaceful protest remains fully protected. These amendments address not expression but coercion, not persuasion but disruption, not dissent but deliberate law-breaking carried out in the expectation that the courts will excuse it after the fact.
That expectation is not hypothetical. It is precisely what flowed from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ziegler. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his interpretation of the law as it stands, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, for his further clarification. The Ziegler decision has encouraged protesters to view arrest as a tactical step, confident that they can later invoke proportionality, sincerity of belief and human rights arguments to defeat prosecution. We saw this with a recent case, whereby Just Stop Oil protesters threw powder paint at the historic Stonehenge. They were acquitted, of course, on all counts. The result is uncertainty for the police, frustration for the public and an erosion of respect for the law.
Noble Lords may agree that the answer lies in better guidance or more nuanced drafting, but we have been down that road. The debates on the Public Order Act 2023, particularly those led by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were an earnest attempt to clarify the law while retaining reasonable excuse defences, but Labour denied the opportunity to do so. The outcome has been complexity layered upon complexity, and still the courts are left to decide case by case whether obstruction, damage, or intimidation was worth it, given the cause advanced.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Causing serious disruption to road transport infrastructureAfter section 8 of the Public Order Act 2023 (key national infrastructure) insert—“8A Causing serious disruption to road transport infrastructure(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) they do an act which causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—(i) two or more individuals, or(ii) an organisation,in their use or operation of road transport infrastructure, and(b) they intend that act to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (a).(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).(4) In this section—“the maximum term for summary offences” has the meaning given by section 6(4); “road transport infrastructure” has the meaning given by section 8(2);“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 7(10).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause creates a new offence of creating serious disruption to road transport infrastructure.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 370 would create an offence of intentionally causing disruption to road traffic infrastructure where the action in question affects multiple individuals or organisations. The amendment originates from the growth, in recent years, of protests designed to cause maximum public disruption to further narrow ideological ends. Activist groups comprising self-aggrandizing ideologues began to realise that, by taking part in large-scale obstructions that affected the law-abiding public, they could get their causes into newspaper headlines and Twitter feeds. The consequence was that groups such as Just Stop Oil became household names through their disruptive tactics. They targeted the lives of everyday people, disrupting people’s livelihoods and hampering the functioning of society.
The most damaging of these protests has become the disruption to road traffic. Protesters sit on busy roads and grind traffic to a halt. People are late for jobs, emergency services are delayed and police time is wasted, and it is the public who, ultimately, must pay the price. In 2022, Just Stop Oil shut down the M25 for four successive days, causing more than 50,000 hours of vehicle delay to over 700,000 vehicles. This cost the public over £700,000, and the cost to the Metropolitan Police was over £1.1 million. Despite 45 people engaging in the protest, only five organisers were arrested and held in custody. If we do not punish those who cause such obscene disruption, we leave the public vulnerable to further disorder.
The Government have taken forward several measures from our previous Criminal Justice Bill, including the provisions to ban possession of pyrotechnics at protests, the new offence of concealing one’s identity at a protest and the prohibition on climbing on specified memorials. However, it is a shame they have neglected to carry forward this particular measure to prevent serious disruption on roads. Avoiding prosecuting disruptive individuals ultimately comes at the expense of the public. I hope the Government can recognise this and will reconsider the amendment.
My further two amendments in this group respond to a stark reality. We have seen successive waves of disruptive protests that have strained our communities, stretched the capacity of our police forces, and left the public questioning whether the law was operating as intended. It is abundantly clear that undue weight has too often been placed on the rights of disruptive activists at the expense of the rights, well-being and interests of the wider public.
Take, for example, the recent Palestine-related demonstrations. The Metropolitan Police has stated that the costs of policing these protests in London between October 2023 and June 2024 were £42.9 million. Some 51,799 Metropolitan Police officers’ shifts and 9,639 police officer shifts from officers usually based outside the Metropolitan Police area were required. Further, 6,339 police officers have had rest days cancelled between October 2023 and April 2024, all of which will eventually have to be repaid to those officers. Such demands on police capacity inevitably divert resources away from policing crime and protecting vulnerable communities.
It is against this backdrop that Amendment 382A seeks to empower chief officers to act decisively. By way of background, Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 currently permits the chief officer of a police force to apply to the local council for an order to prohibit the holding of all demonstrations in a particular area for a period of up to three months. The threshold, as it currently stands, is that the chief officer of police reasonably believes that the powers in Section 12 of the Act—that is, the power to impose conditions on protests—are insufficient to prevent serious public disorder.
However, this threshold of “serious public disorder” overlooks a number of further factors. It does not consider the potential for property damage, the impact on the rights of others not involved in those protests, or the demands placed on police resources. My amendment would replace Section 13(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce the ability for the relevant chief officer to consider the risk of
“serious public disorder … serious damage to property … serious disruption to the life of the community”
and
“undue demands on the police”.
There is precedent for this. Section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 permits the police to prohibit processions if they believe that the protest would place undue demands on the police or military forces. Although I recognise the unique historical context of public processions and assemblies in Northern Ireland, there is no reason why, with modern protest tactics, police forces in England and Wales should not also be able to consider the cost and burden on the police imposed by the policing of the protest.
On Amendment 382C, the existing six-day notice period for marches under Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 simply is not fit for modern policing needs. When tens of thousands of officers must be mobilised at short notice to manage demonstrations that may span multiple days and locations, six days’ advance notice does not provide sufficient time for intelligence assessment, resourcing and engagement with organisers. Extending this to 28 days would acknowledge the complexity and scale of contemporary protest events. It is a proportionate adjustment that gives police forces the lead-in they need without unduly restricting peaceful protest.
I emphasise that these amendments support peaceful, lawful expression, which is a cornerstone of our democracy. They do not, and are not intended to, curtail genuine dissent. They do, however, ensure that, in protecting the ability to protest, we do not trample the rights of those affected by serious destruction.
We are often reminded that the right to protest must be balanced with the rights of others. I put it to noble Lords that these amendments deliver that balance. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench. I think we grossly underestimate how much damage to the UK economy is caused by stopping motorways, particularly the M25. I have not seen authoritative figures for how much it costs to block a motorway, which happens with road traffic accidents. Years ago, I saw a figure of £0.75 million per hour. I do not know whether the Minister has a figure for how much it costs when the M25 or another important motorway is closed. It is not just the effect on motorists; it is the effect on industry, transport and supply chains, and the need to build in extra float in the transport system to allow for that. So, I strongly support my noble friend in everything he said.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, some months ago I was trying to get to Oxford Street and at Oxford Circus a large number of people were sitting on the ground, making it impossible for either end of Regent Street or Oxford Street to move. I believe they were there for several days. All I can say is that, as an ordinary member of the public, I found it extremely irritating, so I am very sympathetic to Amendment 370.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendments 382A and 382C. Amendment 382A amounts to the banning of protests in almost any circumstances at the behest of the police. Proposed new subsection (2)(1B) is particularly guilty in this respect, allowing, as it does, for a protest to be banned because, in the opinion of a chief officer of police, it would place undue demands on the police. But the police, as a public authority, have a duty to facilitate protests, not prevent them. Of course, that duty to facilitate protests has resource implications for the police, sometimes serious implications. That means that the police must be provided with adequate resources by the Government, but it does not mean that, as an alternative to proper resourcing, financial corners should be cut by the Government, thus making it impossible for the police to carry out their duty to facilitate protest. But that is precisely what Amendment 382A would do. It says that protests should be banned because the police are underresourced. It would be better if it said that the police must be sufficiently resourced to allow them to facilitate protest. It does not, and for that reason Amendment 382A must be opposed.
Amendment 382C seeks to extend from six days to 28 the notice period for informing the police of a demonstration, but many demonstrations are spontaneous or are, by necessity, organised at short notice. In any case, the amendment would appear to not achieve anything, because this section of the Bill already contains a provision for late notice as soon as practicable, so there is nothing to be gained by increasing the formal notice period, unless the goal is to make it ever more difficult to organise a protest. Amendment 382C should also be opposed.
Lord Walney (CB)
I will briefly comment on the issue of notice periods for protests, because I have sympathy for the desire to create an ordered system where there is more notice for protests, although I struggle to see how it could be practical in some ways. But the main issue that I would like the Government to reflect on is the now fairly routine practice of the police disregarding the fact that many protests do not meet the current seven days. They may have their reasons, but they take a view to not have any form of prosecution for that. Even if they were to prosecute, the fines are relatively low and therefore not a deterrent. So any change in the notice period needs to be wrapped in with looking at the issue that this law is simply not being enforced at all officially at the moment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his Amendment 370 seeking to update public order legislation. For the benefit of any doubt, let me echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, that this is a serious disruption to key infrastructure caused by protest tactics, and I understand the difficulties and challenges met by those types of protests. The amendment seeks to criminalise acts that cause serious disruption to road transport infrastructure. I say gently to the noble Lord that our view is that, under Section 6 of the Public Order Act 2023, there is an offence already on the statute book of obstructing major transport works, and Section 7 makes it an offence to interfere with key national infrastructure, including roads and other transport infrastructure, as defined by Section 8 of that Act. Introducing a new offence that closely mirrors existing provisions risks unnecessary duplication. It could create confusion for police and prosecutors and it could add complexity where clarity is needed. That does not take away the disruption that can be caused, even the occasional minimal disruption where an individual might be stopped by an ambulance, for example. Those are real key issues, but I suggest that existing legislation covers those proposals.
Amendment 382A seeks to amend Section 13 of the Public Order Act to enable a chief officer of police to consider serious damage to property, 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 already rightly sets a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. It is one thing to place conditions on protests, as provided by elements of the 1986 Act, to enable them to take place peacefully and with minimum disruption; it is quite another to ban processions altogether. I find myself at one with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, on these matters. On occasion, I can reach out with the hand of friendship to him, as well as to other Members of the House.
It is important that all public order legislation continues to be compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, and Section 13 of the 1986 Act allows for the banning of a protest only where it is necessary to prevent serious public disorder. Widening the scope of the power to include taking into account police resources would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest and the legislation becoming incompatible with the obligations that we seek to maintain under the ECHR.
Finally, on Amendment 382C, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, takes this in the best way possible, but I agree with him again on the matter of the requirement to increase the notice period for a protest from six days to 28 days. Six days is an adequate time for the police to be able to determine whether a protest should occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said, there are occasions where protests flare up because of incidents that have occurred. Guidance to police already provides the necessary operational flexibility to allow forces to work with organisers planning protests to ensure that the conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. I say regretfully to the noble Lord that I believe increasing the statutory notice period is unnecessary, and the following is an important point. Sometimes I come to the House and say that the police have requested matters and that is why I am bringing them forward. We have had no requests from the police to look at increasing the number of days from six to 28.
Having said all that again—and I know the House will become tired of the record that I am playing this evening—all matters of public order legislation fall within the terms of reference of the review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. If his review brings forward issues that need to be examined, we will examine them and consider the findings and recommendations very carefully. But, at the moment, with regret, because he has been so supportive this evening on some other matters, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I cannot accept his amendments tonight, although I do understand his references and those of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to the disruption these matters can cause. We believe it is covered by existing legislation and I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House for 33 years. I have lost count of the number of times that Ministers have said that an amendment is unnecessary, and I have used the same argument myself. That being the case, how is it that we saw the M25 being blocked?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have had 30 years in Parliament, not all in this House, and I have used it occasionally and had it used against me occasionally. It is unnecessary given that we have had the legislation on the statute book to date. The noble Earl asks the quite reasonable question of how the M25 gets blocked. I put it to him that this House, this Government, this Parliament and any other parliament passes legislation. It is not for Ministers to implement that: it is for the local police, at a local level, to take a judgment on the legislation at that time. In the cases where there is legislation on the statute book, the police could exercise that legislation. They may or may not choose to do so, because it may inflame the situation or not. It is a matter for judgment by the local police. I simply say to him that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are already in place. For that reason, I ask him to not to press them.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, raised the issue of facilitating protest, which is often cited. It made me think, “I don’t know where that is”. I have just had a quick look, and I do not think it exists. I think Article 11 of the ECHR suggests that the police should not inhibit public protests and certainly should not try to intimidate protesters; that is different from making it sound as though they are there to market protest or to be the arrangers of protests so that they achieve their aim. The trouble is that the police have got into that mindset. They would have to do everything to protect the protester and, if they are not careful, forget the rest. That is why I challenge the Minister, not because I think it is badly intended but because I do not think it is accurate in terms of the ECHR.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will take that as a comment for me and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, to reflect on, but I maintain the position. The police have a difficult job. Legislation is in place currently, and the proposals brought forward would replicate that. I am trying to sit down, but I see the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so once again I will take an intervention.
Lord Harper (Con)
Very briefly, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, and in answering my noble friend Lord Attlee, one of the things that was very helpful in my time at the Department for Transport was that National Highways sought a pre-emptive injunction to set out certain behaviours that should be prohibited and was successful in getting that, which was very effective at giving the necessary tools to the police to keep the motorway open.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. I add that into the mix of the debate today, but I still come to the conclusion that existing legislation, however it is interpreted, covers this. Therefore—for the last time, I hope—I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short debate, but I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed and to my noble friend Lord Attlee for supporting my amendments.
The police are charged not only with facilitating lawful protest but with protecting the safety and liberties of all citizens, yet the current legal framework, I suggest, often leaves officers with insufficient tools to intervene meaningfully before disruption becomes entrenched. Amendment 382A strikes at the core of this problem by allowing chief officers to seek prohibition in defined circumstances, including where marches are likely to cause serious disorder, damage or disruption or to place undue demand on limited policing resources. We align the law with operational reality and public expectations.
What do the public expect? Polling shows that large majorities support police intervention in protest scenarios that go beyond peaceful lawful conduct. They reveal a public who very much distinguish between legitimate expression and conduct that crosses into intimidation and disorder. Similarly, extending the notice period to 28 days is a common-sense enhancement that gives police and local authorities the time needed to prepare for large and potentially complex processions. This is about ensuring the responsible ordering of protest in a way that protects public safety, minimises disruption and allows ordinary citizens to go about their lives.
These amendments are a measured, evidence-based response to the challenge of protest policing in the 21st century. I hear what the Minister says, but I hope the Government can give them some serious consideration. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Walney
“Designation and restriction of Extreme Criminal Protest Groups(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a group as an Extreme Criminal Protest Group (“ECPG”) where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that—(a) the group has as its purpose, object or practice the deliberate commission of imprisonable offences, including but not limited to sabotage, criminal damage, obstruction of critical national infrastructure, or serious public order offences,(b) such offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making, or the exercise of democratic functions, and(c) the activities of the group create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others.(2) A designation under subsection (1) does not amount to terrorist proscription for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.(3) The following are offences in relation to group designated as an ECPG under subsection (1)—(a) membership of a designated ECPG;(b) promotion of a designated ECPG, including public advocacy, recruitment, or dissemination of the group is materials;(c) fundraising for a designated ECPG, including soliciting or providing funds or financial benefit;(d) organising, directing or coordinating activities of the group;(e) providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group where the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECPG.(4) Any offence under subsection (3) is punishable on conviction—(a) on indictment, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.(5) Before making a designation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of reasons, subject to the protection of sensitive information.”
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 370A in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I also intend to speak to Amendment 371AA in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Mendelsohn, Amendment 378A in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and Amendment 380 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee.
Several of these amendments seek to enact recommendations from my review, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, laid before Parliament in May 2024 in my then role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. These remain an excellent set of recommendations that the Government are entirely free to accept at any point, notwithstanding the new review set up by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which has already been mentioned a number of times by the Minister’s colleague.
Let me pre-empt his response and enable him to give a subtly different response from his colleague’s. He will say, or is probably gearing up to say, at the end of this debate that we must all wait for the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to conclude and then wait and see after that. I gently put it to the Government that they have chosen not to do that themselves in one of the amendments that they have put forward on cumulative disruption. If it is good enough for His Majesty’s Government on that amendment, it is entirely within their power, and proper, to move on some of these other issues while the noble Lord looks at the wider picture. He has about 45 minutes—probably a bit more—to make up his mind on that, and I am sure we will see.
I will try to be brief. Amendment 370A, on extreme criminal protest groups, would create a power for the Secretary of State by regulations to designate an extreme criminal protest group
“where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that … the group has as its purpose, object or practice the deliberate commission of imprisonable offences, including … sabotage, criminal damage, obstruction of critical national infrastructure, or serious public order offences”
in order to influence public policy or democratic decision-making, and where those activities
“create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others”.
This amendment is carefully framed. It makes explicit that designation is not terrorist proscription, and it would seek to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support, with proportionate penalties less than those that a proscribed terrorist group would attract.
I think we can see a reason why this amendment—having this power available to the Government—would have been so valuable in recent years. For that, we should look at the example of Palestine Action. Now, there are deeply opposed views in this House on whether it was appropriate to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It has divided the House, it has divided some of my friends with whom I usually agree on the vast majority of issues, and it certainly would divide the country. But I put it to the Committee and the Government that there would be a much greater consensus if it had been available to the Government to stop this organisation, which was avowed in its criminal intent and carried out criminal operations for a period of five years before it was eventually seen to reach the terrorism threshold and was designated.
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?
Lord Walney (CB)
Oh good, that is such great news. Amendment 378A is not about shielding politicians from criticism but about ensuring that elected representatives, working people and members of the public can access democratic institutions and that those who work in and around them can do so without the fear of intimidation. There is clearly a divide in this Chamber on the kind of noisy, disruptive protest to which elected Members and Parliament are now exposed with increasing regularity. I think it is important that we draw a firmer line, and that the Government set the lead in this, in saying that engagement with the democratic process can actually be diminished by aggressive, angry protests, which implicitly can be a menace, a threat of implied force, rather than freedom of expression and making the views of individuals or groups known to their elected representatives, which there are myriad ways of doing in our advanced society.
Amendment 380 is related to the shadow Minister’s previous set of amendments on cumulative disruption. It is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Pannick, the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. This builds on the Government’s own amendments to put the principle of cumulative disruption more clearly into Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, which is welcome. It has been shown to be necessary by the detrimental impact, primarily on Jewish communities, since the Gaza conflict. Many Jewish people have felt intimidated from coming into central London and other places by regular marches and have been beseeching the Government and the police to do something about this—not to ban protests, but to strike a better balance so that they are able to go about their lives and not find themselves in the situation where if a protest group, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, wants to organise a march in central London every Saturday, then, in effect, many Jewish people find that area out of bounds.
It is welcome that the Government have sought to strengthen the ability of the police to place conditions on those protests, but Amendment 380 is necessary because when I, members of the Jewish community and other Peers discussed this with the Metropolitan Police in the thick of the protests, it was clear that its understanding was that that was simply about choosing one street rather than another or perhaps limiting the time, but did not give the ability to say, “You have already been in the centre of London on two Saturdays, so you have to pick a different day”, or “You have to give it a rest this Saturday. Come back the Saturday after”. Under Section 13, that would require recommending that the Secretary of State says no to a march. Therefore, the cumulative impact proposal from the Government will prove insufficient unless it is extended to Section 13 —the ability, on occasion, to say no.
Finally, and briefly—because time is marching on and the issue has been raised in a previous amendment— I turn to Amendment 382E concerning the cumulative impact on policing resources. At the moment, the police are not able to factor in the huge drain on resources that weekly mass marches have been placing on their ability to regulate a protest. Therefore, the bill is racking up to tens of millions of pounds. Bluntly, that is either being placed on taxpayers at a time of increasing fiscal scarcity, or it is going to impact on other front-line policing priorities.
Yes, absolutely, there is a right to protest in this country, but that right is qualified and balanced with other factors. I put it to the Government that ensuring the ability of the police to factor in their own depleted resources in making decisions on repeat processions would be absolutely proportionate. Going out on the streets in mass numbers is probably not the most effective way of getting your view across anyway, in my entirely subjective judgment. It is certainly only one of a myriad of ways in which we have the privilege in our liberal democracy to be able to get our views across. Ultimately, we can also choose to change them every election if we wish.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just wanted clarification on Amendment 370A. Am I to understand that, if this amendment had existed in law, there would not have been any need to use terrorism laws to proscribe Palestine Action?
Lord Walney (CB)
My view on this is, admittedly, from the outside; I had some access as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence for a number of years while this issue was being debated. But, yes, my clear view on looking at this is that you would have been able to place a restriction on Palestine Action much earlier in the process, which would have stopped or been able to inhibit much of the criminal damage. Crucially, it would have meant restrictions before they got to the terrorism threshold, and much of this controversy could have been avoided. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hain for having signed them. It will not come as a great surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that I have differences with his presentation. My amendments represent a compromise rather than the stand part objection in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, although I have to say that the stand part argument does have some attractions.
The first of my sets of amendments is on the question of “in the vicinity”. When discussing a different Bill in this House, the phrase “in the vicinity” was taken to mean within 10 miles. I imagine that that is not the intention of this clause, but it is imprecise. I hope that many noble and learned Lords in the Committee might agree with me that precision in this aspect of the legislation would be helpful and, perhaps, is even necessary. This is what Amendments 371A, 371C and 371E seek to address.
It is accepted from all sides of the Committee that the right to protest should operate in a free, democratic and pluralist society such as ours. It therefore behoves us that, if we infringe on that right, as this Bill clearly does, we do so with clarity in law—I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I do think that, in this case, clarity would help—so as to do the least damage to that right, particularly as, in my view, we must always seek to protect the Article 11 right to freedom of assembly.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I should just begin by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about the farmers, but I note that they did not call to globalise the intifada.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and thank him for the work that he has done and continues to do on counterterrorism. It is deeply appreciated by many, and, from the point of view of the Jewish community, he is a leading non-Jew—a righteous gentile, if I may add—in everything he does.
I have added my name to Amendment 370A and to two or three other amendments in this group. Supporting this amendment would ensure that those creating a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions and the rights of others are curtailed. This can include all sorts of groups, and we know some of them. These groups can pose a clear and tangible threat to public order and public safety, even where their activities may not, in every instance, meet the statutory threshold for terrorism.
The Committee will recall, for example, the incident in November 2023, when Just Stop Oil protesters obstructed an emergency ambulance with its blue lights flashing on Waterloo Bridge—an action that plainly placed lives at risk. An amendment of the nature of Amendment 370A would ensure that such groups, which demonstrably endanger the public and interfere with essential services, could be addressed at an early stage. It would enable more timely and effective intervention where there is a sustained pattern of reckless, disruptive conduct, before serious harm occurs.
On Amendment 370AA, “intifada” is not a neutral expression but one rooted in campaigns of organised violence and terrorism, yet the Government seem to fail to understand, or choose to ignore, what intifada really was and what it truly means, with tragic consequences. I look over at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and think of Heaton Park synagogue at Yom Kippur. Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby are no longer with us. Sydney might be the other end of the world, but what went on there—15 innocent people murdered—was a massacre that shows the results that antisemitism can lead to. These people are the victims of the so-called global intifada. When this Government and Governments around the world do not heed the warnings about the severe and dangerous impact that these words have, this is what happens. This amendment would help stop Manchester or Bondi Beach happening again and would provide clarity for CPS enforcement, in ensuring that Parliament draws a clear line before more lives are lost rather than afterwards. Waiting until loss of life to act is, quite simply, deeply shameful.
I have added my name to Amendment 380. It cannot be right in a free society that any community feels unable to go about its daily life because of repeated demonstrations, however lawful they may each be. This was starkly illustrated by the protest that took place the day after the Manchester synagogue attack, when a traumatised community was given no space to grieve. In such circumstances, managing or conditioning a protest is not always enough. The police must have clear legal authority to prevent such protest going ahead where the cumulative effect tips into serious disruption and intimidation. This amendment would provide that clarity and ensure that the law properly protects public order and the right of communities to live without fear. I would be very interested in the views of the Minister on that.
Finally, Amendment 486B would address a serious problem in our framework for public funding. This problem was exposed most clearly, I guess, by the debacle surrounding the band Kneecap, which was permitted to retain a grant of £14,250 from the British taxpayer, despite a catalogue of deeply troubling activity. This includes behaviour glorifying terrorism, when one of the band members held up a Hezbollah flag on stage, shouting, “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!” Artistic expression must be protected but it must never be allowed to cross the line into incitement—and when it does, public money should certainly not be supporting it. This incident demonstrates how ill equipped our current law is to prevent funds flowing to individuals or organisations whose conduct runs directly counter to our values and our security.
However, the problem is not just Kneecap. An organisation funded by the UK taxpayer, the Collections Trust, issued guidance referring to Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, as “anti-colonial freedom fighters”. That language is not accidental or trivial. It legitimises and sanitises terrorism, and it was disseminated with public funds.
This amendment would make it clear that no organisation should be permitted to receive or retain taxpayer support if it promotes or excuses criminal conduct or narratives that undermine our democratic values. Again, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that public money must never be used, directly or indirectly, to legitimise extremism, and that we here in Parliament have a duty to draw that line clearly and unequivocally.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have given notice of my opposition to Clause 124 standing part of the Bill. I have done this for two reasons. First, I think it is unnecessary and, secondly, it could be even more repressive than the law that this Labour Government have already passed.
Let me be clear: I support the right to worship and to access places of worship freely and safely. I would go along to anywhere where people are protesting and making life difficult for anybody who wants to worship, as that is unacceptable. However, this clause is not a targeted protection against genuinely threatening behaviour. It is a broad, low-threshold power that risks sweeping up lawful, peaceful protest on the basis of guesswork rather than evidence, exactly the same as was discussed in the previous group.
Clause 124 allows conditions to be imposed where a protest
“may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”
in “the vicinity” of a place of worship. The word “may” is doing a lot of work here, as is “vicinity”; neither is defined and together they create a power that is open to misuse. This is not about stopping harassment or threats—we already have strong laws for that. If someone is genuinely intimidating worshippers, the police already have plenty of powers to intervene. What does this clause actually add?
The real problem is that the clause allows restrictions to be imposed even where the protest is peaceful, so long as someone claims they might feel intimidated. That is not a hypothetical risk. Almost any protest that touches on controversial issues could be said to intimidate somebody. Pride marches, trade union demos, climate protests and peaceful protests against war or injustice could all be caught by this wording if they happen to be near a place of worship. In many places in our cities, including London—particularly central Westminster, where so many protests happen—it is very difficult not to be near a place of worship. That creates a very real danger of rolling exclusion zones where protest is progressively pushed out of public space altogether, not because of evidence of harm but because of location and perception.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said about Bondi and the Manchester synagogue, because those terrible attacks were modern examples of the persecution and pogroms that Jewish communities have suffered for centuries. He was right to remind us about that.
I wish to speak to the amendments to Clause 124 tabled by my noble friend Lady Blower, to which I have added my name, and, most importantly, on my opposition to the new clause tabled as Amendment 372 by my noble friend the Minister. He has been a long-standing friend for decades, as a fellow Welsh MP and a valued member of my ministerial team when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest form the bedrock of any liberal democracy like our own. These rights are not a mere courtesy granted by the state; they are a fundamental part of British liberty, also enshrined by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. These freedoms are deeply woven into our history, through iconic protest movements from the Tolpuddle Martyrs and Peterloo to the Chartists, the suffragettes and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Each of these causes, I stress, was disruptive—indeed, vilified—at the time, but they are now recognised as vital movements, successfully winning fundamental rights for millions of British citizens and others abroad. Yet that long tradition of assembly and free protest is now, sadly, under threat.
Any proposal that hands the police unprecedented powers to restrict this right should give this House and every British citizen serious cause for alarm. That is precisely why I find Clause 124 so worrying. First, it would allow protests to be banned and restricted in the so-called “vicinity” of places of religious worship, yet this House is being asked to legislate without clarity. As my noble friend Lady Blower said, “vicinity” is undefined; the term “may intimidate” is equally vague. Such imprecision invites arbitrary interpretation and risks handing law enforcement sweeping discretionary powers to curtail lawful protest. It may also put police officers in an impossible position when doing their jobs.
Secondly, let us be honest about the context here. Clause 124 does not arise in a vacuum. It is clearly framed as a response to national demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights, demonstrations that have been repeatedly and wrongly labelled as hate marches. These protests have never targeted places of worship; they never would and indeed never should. What is more, Jewish campaigners and organisations have been integral to many of those marches and, despite hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, arrests have routinely been fewer than at most football matches. Indeed, the police themselves acknowledge that there has been no evidence of any threat to places of worship linked to these marches and, across more than 33 national demonstrations, not one has targeted or deliberately passed a synagogue.
Of course, the appalling antisemitic attack on a synagogue in Manchester and the Islamophobic attack on a mosque in Peacehaven remind us why our Jewish citizens and all religious communities must be properly protected, but surely Ministers must agree that those terrible attacks were entirely unrelated to protest. Crucially, the police already possess robust and extensive powers to safeguard places of worship and individuals under genuine threat. We must also ask: would these powers be applied to far-right mobilisations outside asylum hotels, where vulnerable refugee communities are explicitly targeted and intimidated, or is enforcement selective?
Clause 124 risks introducing political censorship through the backdoor. The right to worship freely and the right to protest peacefully are not competing freedoms; both must be upheld. This clause sets them against one another and, in doing so, weakens both. Existing powers have already been used repressively against campaigners and at great public cost. Clause 124 would further entrench that approach in law. For these reasons, I support the stand part notice tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Blower. I ask the Government to think again. If there is no such rethink and if it comes to it, I will vote against Clause 124.
The proposed new clause after Clause 124, although presented as a response to public inconvenience, poses a serious danger to freedom of speech and peaceful protest. Expanding the definition of serious disruption by introducing the concept of so-called “cumulative disruption”, it imposes a sweeping duty on the police to restrict or prohibit protests based not on their conduct but on their frequency or persistence in a particular area. Restricting protest simply because it disrupts daily life undermines the very mechanism that gives protest its power. It was precisely cumulative disruption over many years that made early trade unionists, the suffragettes and the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements so effective. No protest movement has ever brought about change through a single demonstration; it is through cumulative protests. To criminalise that principle is to hollow out that very right itself.
The new clause re-characterises protest as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a democratic right to be protected. Its language is dangerously broad. It fails to define when disruption becomes “cumulative”, over what timeframe this is to be assessed or how significant that disruption must be. Such elasticity gives the police sweeping powers to apply arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement, and creates a serious chilling effect on free expression. It would also allow the police to relocate protests to areas of minimal visibility or impact, permitting demonstrations for politically favourable causes in prominent locations while pushing unpopular dissent to the margins.
If this power had been statutorily available from 1969, when I was leading protests at Twickenham rugby stadium and Lord’s cricket ground, among many other sporting venues right across Britain, against touring apartheid all-white South African teams, surely they would have been blocked—thereby blocking the subsequent sports boycott almost universally imposed against whites-only sports tours from apartheid South Africa, which Nelson Mandela, among others, judged to have been decisive in bringing about the downfall of apartheid.
The term “area” is to be widely interpreted. Would restrictions be imposed on entire towns, or even the whole of central London? Non-violent disruption is often the only way that marginalised communities and civil rights protesters can make themselves heard by those who would otherwise ignore them. Neutral policing is a laudable objective, and I upheld that principle when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but this new clause would make policing politically oppressive.
It is difficult to ignore the political context. The amendment follows sustained marches in support of Palestinian rights and in opposition to the war in Gaza. I have already opposed the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group—I am not going to rehash those arguments—because that proscription equates it with the appalling terrorism of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. For objecting to the shameful proscription, it is no surprise—to me, at least—that hundreds of peaceful protesters, including disabled people, the elderly, the young, retired vicars and magistrates, have been arrested as terrorists. Now there are protesters in prison on bail on hunger strike. If they die, that will be an even more shameful stain on this Government and this Parliament.
The new clause contained in government Amendment 372 risks compounding those injustices rather than correcting them. It is oppressive and unjust. Yet it will not just be marches for Palestinian rights that are affected; the impact will be much more wide-ranging. The amendment is also open to abuse by future Governments—Governments of the right, which could urge the police to stamp out political demonstrations.
This House has been here before. In February 2023, your Lordships rejected a similar Conservative amendment to the Public Order Act, which sought to restrict protests on the basis of cumulative disruption. In May 2023, the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, attempted to introduce the same concept by statutory instrument, only for the High Court to rule it unlawful a year later. I am afraid the new clause contained in government Amendment 372 is simply the latest chapter in a familiar and troubling pattern.
While I acknowledge that some protests can be upsetting or experienced by some as intimidating, sweeping restrictions on peaceful assembly are not the solution. Freedom of expression is not absolute and the police already possess a huge range of extensive powers to deal with hate speech, incitement to violence and serious threats—as indeed they should. The new clause contained in government Amendment 372 goes much further, allowing the state to pre-emptively silence thousands of people based on an ill-defined and speculative concept of disruption that is disproportionate, dangerous and profoundly undemocratic. Eroding protest rights weakens accountability between elections and risks fostering authoritarianism. Once such powers exist, they rarely contract. They expand, often exponentially, and could well do so, especially under future Governments if they were less committed to the right of democratic dissent.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Can I ask I the noble Lord to bring his remarks to an end? He has gone well over 10 minutes.
Lord Hain (Lab)
This amendment invites misuse and undermines trust in both policing and Parliament. That is why, in a joint statement, trade unions, charities, non-governmental organisations, and faith, climate justice and human rights organisations have been vocal in their opposition to it only this week. In rejecting it, I hope noble Lords will honour our democratic heritage and safeguard those freedoms for future generations. I urge your Lordships to vote against the new clause contained in government Amendment 372 if it is retabled on Report.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak as these amendments deeply affect places of worship and religious practice. It is always an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain, whose track record around protests over so many years is one we can all learn a great deal from.
Noble Lords have referred to the attack in Manchester on Yom Kippur. That took place 15 minutes’ walk from my house. I know that because I walked there the day after to meet people. The rabbi is Daniel Walker. We share a surname and an initial, but we do not think we are related—the noble Lord is quite right to say that he has more beard than me. He and I have been good friends for many years. He is an extraordinarily brave man, and I am glad that we are able to reflect on that tonight.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Polak, in thanking my noble friend Lord Walney for all his hard work and leadership in seeking to secure a fairer balance in this context. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I positively welcome government Amendment 372, because it will ensure that the police must take account of cumulative disruption when exercising their power to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies.
The amendment will be, and is, particularly welcomed by synagogues and their members, whose access to and from Saturday prayers has been regularly disrupted by hostile, abusive and intimidating crowds of protesters. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester suggested that we should look at intention here, but whether that is the intention of the protestors, it is the effect, and it is very damaging to the right—and it is a right—of worship.
With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, should recognise that there are competing rights here. There is not just the right to protest but the right to go to a synagogue, to have access to a synagogue, to be able to leave a synagogue, and not to be deterred by hundreds of abusive protesters protesting in favour of a particular cause. The noble Lord made the point that cumulative protests may be very effective, and I am sure he is right about that in many contexts. However, the point of government Amendment 372 is not to stop protests or people expressing their view about matters of public policy. The question concerns where the protest takes place, and why it is necessary to go past the same synagogue with hundreds of people every Saturday, preventing those who wish to exercise their right of religious observance—and their right to get there and to leave—doing so peacefully and securely. Yes, protest, but you do not have to do it in the same place, along the same street, every week. The street has no significance for the protester, but it has a real significance for those who want to go to the synagogue.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, says that the right to protest is not in conflict with the right to religious observance, and he is right. The problem arises, as here, where the protesters go along the same road each week. As I say, they do not have to go along that road; they can protest somewhere else, and that is what this amendment is concerned to achieve.
The amendment would reintroduce, with an improvement, the secondary legislation introduced by the previous Government which was held to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal in a case brought by Liberty. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, the secondary legislation was held unlawful by reason of matters other than cumulative disruption. The Court of Appeal did not say that the cumulative disruption provisions in the statutory instrument were unlawful. It said that other parts of the statutory instrument that sought to define the circumstances in which protest was unacceptable were unlawful, not those on cumulative disruption. Amendment 372 is an improvement on what the previous Government introduced because it imposes a duty on the police to have regard to cumulative disruption. The statutory instrument introduced by the previous Government merely conferred a discretion.
I turn to Amendments 373 to 378 from the Opposition Front Bench. I am grateful to the Opposition Front Bench for producing these amendments, which would vary the criteria in government Amendment 372 by focusing attention, for the purposes of cumulative disruption, not on the geographical area in which the public procession or assembly is repeatedly held but on whether the repeated procession or assembly concerns “the same subject matter”.
I recognise that these amendments are well motivated, but I do not support them. The vice of cumulative disruption is that it occurs repeatedly in the same geographical area—for example, in the same street near the synagogue—and causes disruption every Saturday. To focus on whether the repeated protests concern “the same subject matter” misses the point. I am also concerned that legislating with reference to the same subject matter will inevitably provoke disputes over how the police should apply such a criterion. Protesters would inevitably say that last week’s march was in support of Gaza, this week’s is against the Netanyahu Government and next week’s is against the policy of the Trump Administration. I am very doubtful that a specific reference to 50 metres, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would suffice. It all depends on the size of the protest and the nature of the premises, does it not? This is a context where police discretion is desirable.
Finally, I have added my name to Amendment 380, tabled by my noble friend Lord Walney, which would apply the duty to take account of cumulative disruption to the power to prohibit public processions. The same reasoning that justifies the Government’s wish to require cumulative disruption to be considered in relation to the power to impose conditions also justifies a duty to take account of cumulative disruption in relation to the power to ban a public procession.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak; I have been listening with great interest to the competing arguments. However, I am utterly convinced by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the government amendment.
It crosses my mind that, just as Jews and synagogues are currently at risk, I can see a situation in the future where mosques and people who support Muslims, or indeed the gurdwaras of the Sikhs, are under threat. You might get an extremist group of Sikhs opposed to the current Sikh processes who decide to have a demonstration every single week against a series of gurdwaras in a certain area. What the Government are seeking to do is entirely sensible. It will impose on the police a duty and give them a power to decide whether to carry out what may or may not be needed. We need to accept this government amendment. I am also very attracted to the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, which would add a bit to the government amendment. Having listened, I really think that the government amendment must get through.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 370AA, which stands in my name as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who has already spoken to it. I also support Amendment 486C, which I tabled with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
I start by thanking the Government for introducing this clause and their amendment, both of which are very important measures. I am grateful to them for introducing them, and I hope that they remain as strong and as resolute as they can be in pushing them through.
I will try to give noble Lords the context of what we are doing. The reason we are here is that we are facing the considerable problem of non-prosecutions. This is the type of thing happening in our society that is undermining democratic resilience and social cohesion, and which is particularly targeting the Jewish community. That is the area where my amendments are particularly relevant, and they apply in that context.
It is absolutely clear that one of the issues coming up is that a lot of existing powers are not used. I fear to mention Policy Exchange again, but I note that that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, made a significant point in his speech there today. He said:
“My perception is that if you don’t deal with anti-Israeli hatred, you leave wriggle room for those who indulge in antisemitism but formally disavow it. Once hatred to Israelis is tolerated then it is carried around like a flame”.
He made the further point, which I think is immensely significant:
“The truth is that hatred of nationality fits onto hatred of race like a glove. And importantly, our law recognizes this. The Public Order Act 1986 prohibits stirring up racial hatred. Let me read section 17 of the 1986 Act which defines racial hatred, and I am going to do this slowly: ‘In this Part “racial hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins’”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee is in the business of precision and proportionality. Those two concepts have rightly been raised by a number of noble Lords and my noble friends. It is because of reasons of proportionality and precision that I agree that the concept of “the vicinity” is too vague and too broad. I say that while completely acknowledging that places of worship are sensitive places and that it is completely proportionate within the European Convention on Human Rights to give them some extra protection.
There is precedent in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the concepts of “area” and “vicinity” being too flabby and too broad. Noble Lords may remember that this allowed an area not defined to be designated for the purpose of suspicionless stop and search. In 2003, in response to the anti-arms demonstrations at the ExCeL centre in the Docklands, a number of protesters were stopped and searched and issued notices. Only through the parliamentary debates and litigation that followed did the public become aware that all of England and Wales had been designated during the Iraq war. That was the breadth of the area for suspicionless stop and search—a power that was used as an anti-protest power.
That does not mean that there cannot be limitations, but they need some definition. After many years of litigation in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the UK Government were found wanting because of that breadth and the blanket nature of the power, because there was no definition. I am trying to help my noble friends in government by suggesting that concepts such as areas and vicinities will be better for definition, so I support my noble friend Lady Blower and commend her remarks in speaking to her amendment.
I also commend my noble friend Lord Hain and remind the Committee that he was not just an anti-apartheid activist in his day, digging up sports fields and whatever else he was digging up—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sorry. He was sitting on them. I do not mean to defame him.
My noble friend of course went on to be Northern Ireland Secretary and therefore has some understanding of the need to balance rights—the rights of peaceful dissent but also the rights of people to go about their business, particularly in their homes and places of worship and so on. That is proportionality and precision.
This vice of vagueness with the concept of “vicinity” is mirrored in the concept of “area” for the purposes of cumulative disruption. As with the Section 44 provision that ended up being impugned in the Strasbourg court, “area” for the purposes of cumulative disruption is not defined, so we are looking at a very broad power here. I say to noble Lords, with all solidarity with their concerns about, for example, synagogues and places of faith and worship, that provisions such as these can be applied as much to a counterprotest as to a protest, and to one group or another group at different times. When we legislate, we need to have a mind to how these powers might be used in the future.
To those noble Lords who spoke of a new quasi-terrorist proscription but for groups that do not quite meet the threshold—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Not for terrorism but for extreme protest et cetera that by definition does not meet the test of terrorism but something less than that, I urge extreme caution. There is a reason why powers to proscribe have to date been limited to terrorist groups—that exceptional threat—and the reason is that guilt by association is extremely dangerous when you are dealing with broad communities, potentially millions of people, and protest movements.
I have no doubt that some of the activities by some suffragettes—and we saint them now; everyone in this Committee saints and canonises the suffragettes—would meet the terrorist threshold. But does that mean that we want to tar them all in the same way and suggest that the entire movement should be subject to proscription? I urge caution with that and with any amendments in this group that go further than is precise or proportionate.
Official Development Assistance
Lord Bates
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any humanitarian impacts of actual and planned reductions in Official Development Assistance.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I shall never forget it. It was late morning on 25 June 2017. I was then the Minister for International Development. We were visiting the Al-Sabbah Children’s Hospital on the outskirts of Juba in South Sudan. It is the only functional paediatric hospital in a country five times the size of England. People would travel long distances to access its life-saving care. The hospital was funded by British taxpayers and delivered in partnership with UNICEF and Gavi.
Just as we were leaving, a tall, elderly man ran in, carrying a small child, desperately seeking assistance. The child was a girl, around five; she was his granddaughter. He had walked three days to get her to the hospital. Later the nurses told us that she had died on the way from dehydration caused by diarrhoea, from a virus that still kills around 500,000 under-fives every year. The staff pointed out that a simple sachet of oral rehydration therapy, essentially sugar and salt mixed with clean water, a treatment costing around 50 pence, could have saved her life. I will never forget the look of grief and the vacant stare that the man gave as he sat on the steps of that hospital on hearing the news. He had done everything he could for his granddaughter, but I felt that the same could not be said for us. I told him this. We could have done more, but now we are proposing to do even less.
A dangerous myth has emerged in recent years that UK aid is wasted. Tell that to the parents sitting at the bedside of their sick children in the wards of the Al-Sabbah hospital. The second fallacy is that national security depends solely on defence, whereas in fact it is a careful blend of diplomacy, development and defence. The more effective we are in deploying the first two, the less we need to rely on the third. In a debate on 13 July 2021 on the decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, the then shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said:
“If this cut goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col. 220.]
She was right.
The final dangerous fallacy is that the British people do not support aid. I do not accept it. The British people, I believe, are the most generous and compassionate in the world. That is why many of the leading humanitarian charities were started here: Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief, Water Aid and, of course, Live Aid. What angers the British people is seeing their generous aid not reaching the people for whom it was intended—a case in point with figures released by the Foreign Office, which have shown that over the past year the proportion of the budget allocated to health has been cut by 46% to £527 million, whereas the budget for energy, climate change and the environment has been increased by 59% to £658 million. That is a bewildering decision, which puts lives at risk. It is like the NHS being asked to make savings in its budget and choosing first to close accident and emergency units and intensive care wards in order to put more solar panels on the roof. Can the Minister confirm these numbers, and tell us how this decision was made?
Let me give just three examples of the real-world effect of these changes in priority. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has saved an estimated 13 million lives. The UK Government have announced that their contribution will be cut by 24%. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has saved an estimated 65 million lives, but the UK has announced that its contribution is being cut by 15%. UK funding for the World Food Programme, providing emergency food assistance to 124 million people, has been cut by one-third. The chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion, said:
“The savage aid cuts announced this year are already proving to be a tragic error that will cost lives and livelihoods, undermine our international standing and ultimately threaten our national security. They must be reversed”.
These decisions are already costing lives. The Government’s own equality impact assessment on the proposed ODA cuts has confirmed this. The Gates Foundation has estimated that the number of preventable childhood deaths last year increased for the first time this century, by 200,000, from 4.6 million to 4.8 million. The ONE Campaign suggested that the UK cuts to the Gavi budget alone will cost 600,000 lives, but the cumulative effect of UK aid cuts as planned is likely to be measured in millions of lives, mostly children’s. To put that in context, the UN estimates that the total civilian deaths in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza over the past four years tragically number some 85,000. Yet, by comparison, these millions of deaths pass us by largely unnoticed.
It does not need to be this way. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs at the UN, the distinguished former British diplomat Tom Fletcher, has launched an emergency appeal, the Global Humanitarian Overview, based on his humanitarian reset. The aim is to save the lives of 87 million people. It is laser focused on the most urgent, life-saving humanitarian needs—exactly what British taxpayers have always supported. He is looking to raise $23 billion from the international community by March this year. The plan is so convincing and the need so great that even the Trump Administration have pledged to back it with $2 billion. The UK has yet to respond. I am delighted to say that Tom Fletcher will be here tomorrow, giving a briefing on his plans in Committee Room 1 at 4.30 pm, and it is open to all parliamentarians to learn more about this compelling proposal.
The more I look into the details of this matter, the more I see it as less a crisis of cash and more a crisis of misplaced priorities. I firmly believe that by changing priorities and being laser focused on saving lives, we could find $1 billion from within the existing ODA budget to support this ambitious plan to save lives, restore our international reputation and enhance our national security in the process. I commend this plan to the Minister and, indeed, to the whole House.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the unpalatable truth is that the 25% cut in OECD support, together with the cut in European aid, is proving catastrophic for development and humanitarian assistance in the third world. The Labour Government, having inherited a legacy of economic problems, have had to take some very difficult and agonising decisions, and I am the first to recognise that. But the cuts in aid have been unsettling. The shifts from development budgets to defence and asylum support have been problematic.
Over a lifetime, I have travelled worldwide, and I have seen real poverty. I first saw it as a third-world hitchhiker in my early 20s, later in business and during my work in the Commons, in the development brief. Cuts in aid, in conjunction with the disastrous effects of climate change, are provoking unparalleled movements of population from the third world to first-world countries. This movement is in its infancy; it is creating social pressures and division, racial intolerance and problems of integration, and is breeding extremism throughout Europe.
Thankfully, enlightened policy in the United Kingdom, under all Governments, has to date helped to avoid the worst effects, but the rise of the far right across Europe is a direct consequence of population movements. Our mistake, across Europe, is to persist in the belief that cutting overseas assistance is unavoidable in conditions of financial restraint. I question this whole approach. The truth is that if we want to stem population flows, the developed world has to increase, not decrease its support for the third world.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for initiating this debate. I declare my interest as CEO of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger.
As we have heard, the world faces an unprecedented series of humanitarian crises driven by conflict and climate shocks, from the DRC to Myanmar, Palestine to Sudan, Somalia to Yemen and many places in-between. In the face of this staggering human suffering, rather than step up to the plate, the world has chosen to step away, allowing conflict to go unresolved and leading to huge shortfalls in the funding required to provide desperately needed food, medical supplies and access to clean water.
In Sudan, for example, the World Food Programme has a funding shortfall of $662 million. Hospitals are out of critical supplies of basic medicines and emergency therapeutic foods. Last year, speaking to the BBC, Dr Ibrahim Abdullah Khater, a paediatrician at al-Saudi Hospital in El Fasher told the BBC,
“We have many malnourished children admitted in hospital, but unfortunately there is no single sachet”
of therapeutic food. He continued:
“The situation, it is so miserable, it is so catastrophic”.
In the DRC, UNICEF’s level 3 emergency response continues to face severe funding shortfalls, with a 73% gap in health funding and a 42% gap in nutrition funding. Agencies are having to make decisions that, in effect, take from the hungry in order to provide for the starving. This story is repeated in Yemen, Afghanistan, South Sudan and many other places. The UK’s ability is constrained by our own ODA cuts, so I urge the Government to do all they can to maximise the use of the funds that we have, through innovative mechanisms such as the Child Nutrition Fund and other financing mechanisms.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the UK Government have chosen to withdraw a vital safety net from the world’s most vulnerable people at a time of unprecedented global instability. There are currently around 59 active conflicts worldwide, the highest since the Second World War, yet the response has been to cut aid.
The Government’s own assessments show that women and girls are bearing the brunt. These cuts are costing lives and these deaths are preventable. Reducing funding for maternity care is leading to more women dying in childbirth and pregnancy. The closure of women’s refuges is leaving women exposed to gender-based violence. Fewer girls are attending school, increasing risks of child marriage, FGM and sexual exploitation. When girls and women lose access to education and livelihoods, whole societies become less stable. Is the Minister therefore able to share which countries have been most impacted by the aid cuts?
I understand that the Government needed more funding for defence, but why not take this money from elsewhere? Why take it from life-saving support for women and girls? Does the Minister accept that this has damaged the UK’s global reputation? How can the Government credibly champion women and girls abroad, particularly through the appointment of a women and girls envoy, at the very same time that they made the cuts of funding to women and girls? If the Government are worried about public opinion, they could provide more information on how the funds are spent and their impact.
The Government are capable of U-turns. I hope they do another one and restore aid before further preventable harm is done.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, we on this Bench continue to lament the reduction in ODA. I call on the Government, as others have, to publish a clear road map for returning to previous commitments on international development, which affects so many people, particularly, as has already been said, women and girls.
In the short time I have, I will focus on Gaza. It is welcome that forecast humanitarian spend in Gaza is currently protected from cuts in ODA, but I am sure that noble Lords are aware that international NGOs face ongoing restrictions on aid and considerable obstacles to working in Gaza. I simply want to add my voice to those, including His Majesty’s Government, who are concerned that many established international NGO partners are at risk of being deregistered because of the Government of Israel’s restrictive new requirements. Given that the majority of the population in Gaza face high levels of acute food insecurity, will the Minister say what more can be done to encourage the Government of Israel to give international NGOs the access to the region that they need?
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, in the two minutes I have been allotted, another four people globally will die from tuberculosis. That is 1.25 million people a year. It is the world’s deadliest disease and still exacts this terrible toll, quite unnecessarily.
For 20 years, I have been campaigning to draw attention to the problem of TB and our continuing failure to beat the disease, the last 10 of which as chair of the Global TB Caucus. It would be easy to be despondent because of the fiscal headwinds, of which we have heard much already, and the reductions in overseas development spending, not just by this Government but by others, notably the United States. Yet I find myself being more optimistic than I have been for some time that we could finally beat this disease, because of the advent of innovative new treatments, new technology, and, at last, the prospect of a vaccine in sight, which does not exist for adults.
I simply implore the Government to recognise that they still have the power to help end this disease, in spite of the reductions in funding, which are simply a fact at the moment. They have the ability to convene, both at ministerial level and at the level of their missions. They could say something about this issue on World TB Day. They could say more about how the vaccine could be rolled out when it becomes available. They could continue to support cost-effective programmes, such as TB REACH, that find innovative new solutions to beat this disease. We cannot just fall prey to counsels of despair. There is much that the Government can still do, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to write to the Minister about that. Perhaps she might be willing to meet to discuss those ideas.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on securing this debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the Halo Trust, the global mine and explosives removal charity. I recognise that the pressing nature of the security threats we face may mean that other spending needs to be curtailed, but if this is to include ODA then the cuts need to be made strategically and in a way that retains a distinctive UK contribution.
Humanitarian mine action is just such a UK contribution. It is a strategic asset for this country—one that saves lives, helps stabilise fragile regions and contributes to the UK’s bilateral relations with a number of vital states. In 2023, 69% of civilian personnel mine clearance globally was carried out by either the Halo Trust or the Mines Advisory Group. Both are British charities. This is an area where we do not merely contribute; we lead, drawing on decades of experience and credibility that no other country can match, and operating in many of the most troubled parts of the world—places that matter to the United Kingdom, such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Zimbabwe and Gaza.
I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will maintain their commitment to the global mine action programme, which is a great British success story. Do the Government recognise that the integrated security fund should increase its focus on preventing conflict, which, in the longer term, is more effective than responding to crises as they arise? If the ISF is genuinely to be integrated then it must be used upstream to prevent conflict, not simply to respond once instability reaches our shores.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for securing this debate. My brief remarks will draw on two reports. The first is from the Public Accounts Committee in June, highlighting the links between trade deals, aid cuts and superbugs, and the second is a Chatham House report from November titled Rethinking UK Aid Policy in an Era of Global Funding Cuts.
But first, a note of perspective: this year, global aid is expected to have declined by almost a third versus the level of 2023—this while the level of subsidy from the global South to the wealthy continues to grow, with huge repayments on high-interest loans to wealthy banks, institutions and Governments. Physical extractivism also continues apace, with natural resources ripped from global South lands, and pollution and destruction left as payment. The poor, particularly, pay with their health, and the globe sees fast-rising threats from infectious diseases; as we learned from Covid, no one is safe until everyone is safe.
Health provision is in a state of crisis. The FCDO figures already referred to show a 45% fall in health funding in 2024-25, and another 46% fall is coming this year. A WHO analysis last year found country offices reporting massive disruption. In the 20th century there was a hubristic complacency that humans had essentially defeated infectious diseases; that is clearly not the case now, but there are still cuts.
We are allowing, even encouraging, the disease organisms to marshal and develop their forces against us by developing and spreading resistance to the drugs that we have so expensively developed and put out to try to treat people through antimicrobial resistance, as both the reports I draw on indicate.
The closure of the Fleming Fund was announced in July. The Government say that they plan to mitigate this with a new partnership model. As the Chatham House report says, there are still no details of this. Can the Minister tell me, or write to me about, what the plans are for that partnership model?
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I noticed tonight on the news that there is a suggestion that the Government might be announcing another so-called U-turn—that would be the 13th, for those who appear to be counting in the media. I think 13 is a very unlucky number, if I can say that to the Minister and the Government. Perhaps they might want to consider a 14th before the 12 months are out since the announcement last year of the cut in ODA.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor really should think again about becoming the first Labour Government in history to spend less than the Conservatives on overseas development assistance. I hope that, between now and the one-year anniversary of the announcement last year, they will rethink this; otherwise, from April this year, people will be thrown out of school, lose vaccinations, lose job opportunities and lose access to clean water. That would be a humanitarian disaster, as described very eloquently by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who has a terrific voluntary record in this sphere as well as a fantastic record as a Minister.
However, I disagree with the noble Lord on one point. All, or a substantial proportion of, this budget should be directly allocated to the consequences of conflict and the displacement that we see around the world. I believe that in the new, reduced budget there is a desperate need for a specific allocation for conflict prevention and preventive work of the sort described by the noble Lord, Lord Evans.
I hope that the Government, in allocating this reduced budget—if it has not changed before the end of this financial year—allocate a specific resource to expertise and to interventionist projects that help prevent conflict, and directly to the stability that is required to ensure that people have a chance to experience education, health services, job opportunities and other services that are so vital in their lives.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in relation to family planning and sexual and reproductive health, which are core components of effective humanitarian aid, not add-ons. SRHR services are at high risk of being disrupted during conflict and displacement, with lack of access to essential sexual and reproductive health services a leading cause of death for displaced women and girls.
In 2024, the United Kingdom’s funding for family planning is estimated to have enabled 11 million women to access modern contraception. In a single year, it prevented an estimated 3.7 million unintended pregnancies, including 1.2 million unsafe abortions and 1.3 million unplanned births, and is estimated, crucially, to have averted almost 4,000 maternal deaths in low- and middle-income countries. These are not abstract statistics. They represent women who survived childbirth, girls who stayed in school and families able to plan their futures. Yet this progress is under serious threat as global funding cuts converge with multiple crises and conflicts.
While we await the final UK decisions on future spending, modelling from the Guttmacher Institute shows that a 30% reduction in UK family planning funding alone would mean 3.3 million fewer people reached, more than 1 million additional unintended pregnancies and an estimated 1,170 additional maternal deaths.
This is also a question of value for money. Every pound invested in family planning yields almost £27 in social and economic benefits. Voluntary, rights-based family planning underpins social stability, gender equality and economic growth, and contributes to long-term resilience.
I recognise the importance of sustainability, country ownership and, indeed, partnership. We can use modern financing tools and delivery models as well, through debt relief, private sector innovation and smarter, accountable financing that delivers lasting results.
UNFPA’s work through the Supplies Partnership has helped Governments increase domestic contraceptive spending fivefold since 2020. But transition must be predictable; sudden funding withdrawals risk reversing hard-won gains. I have heard the Minister talk about gender mainstreaming, but I think that there is a clear case for specific programming too.
I urge the Government to protect spending on sexual and reproductive health and rights within ODA. It is not only the right thing to do; it is one of the smartest investments we can make, and it is part of the solution to nearly every major global challenge that we face.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, worldwide cuts to international development programmes are a reality. We cannot escape the adverse effects this will have on poverty reduction, healthcare, education and, importantly, national security. Depressing as these statistics are, they enforce innovative, perhaps leaner, ways of delivering development assistance, and priorities must include a greater reliance on locally led development and local civil society organisations.
In its simplest form, development is a process of identifying viable local projects, establishing leadership which has the confidence of the community, and supplying money and expertise where requested. The final stage is to step away and begin again elsewhere. In short, this means supporting what people need and are committed to and helping the local community to get on with it. In nearly all societies, small-scale or otherwise, people make intelligent decisions about the welfare of their communities—of course, there are exceptions—and the job of the donor is to facilitate this.
I have spent much of my working life in remote and impoverished communities and observing the international development fraternity at work; money is often wasted, many projects fail in the short and medium terms and too little planning is based on evidence.
In 2001, in Afghanistan, I met a potential leader who had the intelligence, sensitivity and determination to achieve his dream of educating girls. All he lacked was funding; we began providing small amounts of a few hundred pounds, delivered here and there in brown paper envelopes. With this, he repaired buildings, created warm spaces in winter for people to congregate in, worked with parents to persuade them of the value of educating their daughters, and held classes on how to vote in the forthcoming election. A few more hundred pounds saw the construction of functional school buildings and increasing commitment from local families and businesses to support this programme, in which they had enormous pride. Teacher training and vocational courses were added, and female students began to attend universities in surrounding countries such as India and Bangladesh, and in Australia, Canada and the UK.
I see I have come to the end of my time so I will cut to the chase. The total contribution from donors here in the UK over a period of some 20 years was in the region of £140,000, including fees for consultant engineers and auditing help. In 2022 the Taliban returned. We continue to follow a pared-down development model in Afghanistan, albeit in different guises.
Development requires humility, evidence, trust and understanding of local cultural norms, as well as modest funds.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, overseas development assistance is often discussed in terms of percentages, ceilings and fiscal headroom. But on the ground, it looks very different: it looks like a clinic that is no longer open three days a week, a nutrition programme that quietly stops enrolling new children or a women’s safe space that closes because funding has ended.
Since the reduction of UK aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, the cumulative effect of cuts has been profound. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has documented programmes being scaled back or closed altogether, often with little notice to implementing partners or affected communities. These decisions are not neutral; they have humanitarian consequences.
We are living through a moment of unprecedented global need. The United Nations estimates that more than 300 million people now require humanitarian assistance worldwide—the highest number ever recorded —driven by conflict, climate disasters and economic shocks. Over half of them are women and children. At the same time, humanitarian response plans are chronically underfunded, often receiving less than 40% of what is required.
As we have little time, I will just say that aid is not charity; it is an investment in stability, dignity and shared security. When we reduce it without care, we do not eliminate need; we deepen it. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the humanitarian impacts of both actual and planned reductions in ODA, and place the protection of the most vulnerable back at the centre of our approach.
In particular, as my noble friend Lord McConnell said, during this difficult period, we need to implement more money to tackle sexual violence in conflict. We should work to help communities build peace, and to do that we have to have women on the ground, with children. Women also have to be at the peace table. This should be very much part of our international aid and we should not be cutting aid at this difficult time.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, Governments can be forced to make abrupt, top-down decisions without having the time to undertake scientific ground-up assessments on the impact of those decisions. That is very much the case with our ODA budget, which, at a stroke, will lose an annual £6.2 billion, taking it down to £9.2 billion. In the space of five years, we have dropped from 0.7% of GNI—which in today’s terms would in fact be £19.5 billion—to less than 0.3%, once you factor in the cost of funds devoted to asylum support in the UK.
There is no time to debate the rights and wrongs of these cuts, so I will focus on measuring the humanitarian impact. In that vein, I have some questions for the Minister. First, when will a full impact assessment on UK ODA cuts be completed and shared with Parliament and the public, and how transparent and granular will it be? Secondly, will it specifically cover the number of people impacted by age, gender and country in the following five areas: healthcare, education, nutrition, housing and sanitation, and poverty? Thirdly, what will be the projected mortality consequences of the current planned defunding—namely, the number of additional preventable deaths? These are hard, uncomfortable questions that deserve explicit answers.
I conclude by providing some context, courtesy of the Institute for Global Health. It estimates that the global decline in ODA funding could result in 22 million additional deaths by 2030, including 5 million children under the age of five.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on the debate and on his powerful speech and say how much I enjoyed working with him as the Development Minister.
As co-chair of the APPG for Aid Match, I urge the Government to make more use of it. The Minister complained about the loss of public support for aid, but aid match can draw people in. It can and should be more than a gimmick. Experience has shown that, when people can see how their donations change lives, it encourages giving. It may also help people appreciate the difference between urgent emergency and long-term commitment to building health systems, educating young people—especially women and girls—and training for secure livelihoods. Will the Minister explain how the Government will balance multilateral spending versus bilateral commitments? She should also explain how the Government will divide the aid budget between humanitarian assistance and development assistance.
Long-term partnerships with Governments in developing countries can help build capacity and resilience. We should not underestimate the good will that flows from such programmes. Will the Government consider working with such Governments to help build their own capacity and delivery? This requires relatively small amounts of funds in technical assistance and diplomatic support—no substitute for the aid cuts, but at least positive progress. How does the Minister propose to work with the private sector, first, to expand UK trade and investment and, secondly, to encourage businesses to provide philanthropic support to build capacity and strengthen bilateral partnerships? The full impact of the aid cuts has yet to be felt, but the demise of USAID has already had consequences.
Finally, what are the UK Government doing to build partnerships to help aid and development funding maximise achievement by co-operation and efficiency savings through pooling teams and resources, nationally and internationally? The UK was a world leader in the field; I urge the Government to show how we can be again.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bates on securing this important debate. He has once again made a powerful and deeply personal case for the positive impact of UK overseas development assistance, and for the leadership role that this country can and should play internationally. His account of what he has witnessed was moving, and underlined the reality that behind every statistic are human lives.
In an increasingly unstable world, the case for effective, well-targeted development assistance is stronger than ever. Britain must continue to work with international partners to support the most vulnerable, prevent crises escalating further and promote stability where we can. The situation in Sudan, which this House has debated before, is a tragic example. The humanitarian catastrophe unfolding there demands urgent international action.
Can the Minister please update the House on what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of the humanitarian impacts of recent and planned reductions in ODA, particularly in conflict-affected states? Can the Minister provide an update on what the UK Government are doing to ensure that aid is reaching those who need it most, including efforts to alleviate famine, prevent the spread of disease and protect displaced populations?
As my noble friend rightly said, Britain is a generous and outward-looking nation. The extraordinary support given by the public to international charities reflects a strong moral commitment to helping those in desperate circumstances. However, public confidence depends on knowing that aid is being used for its intended humanitarian purpose and is delivering real impact on the ground. In that context, can the Minister update the House on how much ODA is currently being used to fund costs associated with asylum accommodation? The Government’s manifesto committed to ending the use of asylum hotels and saving enormous sums of money.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom has a vital role to play internationally. At a time of growing global need, it is essential that development assistance is not only well spent but that its humanitarian impact is clearly understood and rigorously assessed.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for providing us with the opportunity to have this discussion. It is probably rather overdue, and there seems to be some pent-up frustration and anger in the Chamber about decisions that have been made, and I absolutely hear that. He gave us such a vivid account of why this matters, and I honestly could not agree more with the case that he made for the UK showing global leadership on development and humanitarian assistance. He is absolutely right to talk to us about how important this is.
The noble Lord spoke of fallacies around the UK public’s attitudes and the hopelessness of all this, and he is right to do that too. However, it is true—and it is important that we remind ourselves of this—that development, countries and the nature of humanitarian aid have changed as well. Even if we had not cut the budget, we would have had to fundamentally rethink how we go about the business of development in 2026, compared to the decisions that were taken in, say, 2005. I am incredibly proud of those decisions, and of the role that the then Labour Prime Minister and Chancellor played in that, but the world has changed.
The collective experience of this House has shone through this evening; it is an experience of many decades, from noble Lords who have worked on this as a Minister, in the sector or with Halo, and we benefit from hearing all about that. Like people across the country, this Chamber cares deeply about the role that the Government play. On behalf of the Government, I want to leave noble Lords in absolutely no doubt whatever that we share that care and commitment to supporting the world’s poorest.
I have to challenge the idea that less money in the ODA budget has to lead to less action, less impact and fewer development outcomes. I do not believe that any more. As we have already seen this year, the world has changed a lot and it is continuing to change. We cannot just keep doing things as we always have done in the face of that change. I am absolutely focused on the reform agenda that we need to see in the humanitarian and development system. We need that so we get the biggest impact for those people who we are working so hard to support.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, and other noble Lords quoted figures around our global health spend. I do not think those numbers are quite right—they probably relate to our global health directorate. We spend more of our money on global health through the Global Fund and Gavi. Those who have been Ministers will remember that there is not an even spend across the years on those. We are now the largest contributor to Gavi and we hosted the Global Fund replenishment. We are at the leading edge of donors on global health, and that has not changed. The numbers have finally been published for the proportion of our money that goes on global health, and noble Lords will see that that has increased. I ask those noble Lords opposite with such a deep concern about this to perhaps challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party about its current position on further reducing spend to 0.1%. Even I cannot see how you run a development budget on that amount of money.
Tom Fletcher’s name came up a few times, as it should. He is a strong leader and we are very proud of him at OCHA. I am seeing him tomorrow and I encourage others who have been invited to go to the briefing that he has arranged. He is an incredibly strong advocate for this agenda and he is doing remarkable work at the United Nations.
I want to touch a little on the humanitarian context. Despite huge advances in the last 30 years, which have seen extreme poverty fall, today, humanitarian needs are rising, and a lot of this, as noble Lords have said, is about conflict. This year, more than 239 million people will require humanitarian support, and the UN is hyperprioritising 87 million people with the most life-threatening needs. Our hearts are absolutely in this agenda, but our heads need to be as well. We need to do that so that every penny goes where it is needed. We have to make prioritisation decisions with our ODA budget for the next three years, and we are going to be announcing the allocations very soon.
However, it is not true to say that the UK’s international reputation is diminished. That is incorrect, and saying that fails to appreciate the way in which the world has also changed. The clear message that we have from partners particularly in Africa—we announced our new Africa approach just before Christmas—is that our partner countries want to work with us just as that: as partners, and they do not see us as donors. They want to take responsibility for their own services, the education of their own children, setting up their own health systems, and we can do a lot better than we have done sometimes in the past in supporting countries to do that and to raise more of the money that they need domestically. This is working in Ghana and in Rwanda, and we have done some good work on this in Ethiopia and Kenya. That is how countries want to work with us. It is very different to a traditional programming approach.
On humanitarian spend, we estimate that, in 2025-26, this will be around £1.6 billion. I can answer the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, opposite: in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan we are going to protect our spending. I think Ukraine currently has the biggest ODA programme in history, at £240 million a year.
On Gaza, I was asked about access. We are pressing for humanitarian corridors. We are calling on Israel to lift restrictions to allow the UN and other NGOs to operate freely, and we will continue to do that.
Since April, our humanitarian crisis reserve has provided £72.5 million in life-saving support, which is in connection with earthquakes in Myanmar and Afghanistan, famine risks across east Africa and Yemen, and the hurricane in Jamaica.
I was quite impressed by the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, explaining the need for evidence-based work. I completely agree with that, and we are now having to be much more ruthless about ensuring that everything we do is based on a sound understanding of what works. We are backing multilateral organisations which have the biggest impact —I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, encouraged us to do that—including through the commitments that we have made to Gavi and the Global Fund, and we are championing reform, particularly at the UN.
I meet Tom Fletcher regularly, as I have said, and we completely support the reform agenda that he is proposing. We are clear about what we need to see; this is about rigorous prioritisation of those in the greatest need, more streamlining to approve efficiency and value for money, and a greater focus on upholding international humanitarian law and protecting the vulnerable. This will give us a more joined-up response across humanitarian and development agencies, removing false distinctions, which hold effective work back too often. We will also lead by example on this, reflecting these principles in the UK decisions that we are making. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said we should, when we can, we will work principally with local organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and others encouraged us to increase the Government’s spend. I am very happy to take that message back to my right honourable friend the Chancellor. I do not think that that will happen any time soon, but we need to use the opportunity that we have now to carry out the changes that are needed, so that when the situation changes, we can get absolute best value out of every penny that we spend—I am trying to make sure that I do not run over time here.
I will mention a little about technology in the private sector, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also mentioned. We need to bring all the talents of the United Kingdom to bear on this, because this will no longer be a situation where the Government are the only actor alongside some NGOs. Technology companies, philanthropic organisations, the private sector, our universities—I think that with all of them there is a desire, which is far more widespread than we have been able to capitalise on in the past, to be active and leading in development. The Government ought sometimes to be more of a convener than a provider, and we will be taking that approach forward. We hope to hold an event in the summer where we try to bring all these people with an interest together—I will finish very soon.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Goudie, asked us about violence against women and girls, and I am very glad that they did. They will have seen that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has called a national and international violence against women and girls emergency and is committed to putting these issues at the heart of our foreign policy. The impact assessments and the decisions that we have made will be published in full when we publish our allocations. We have already used those impact assessments to amend some of the decisions that we have made, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to see traces of what she believes in when we make those announcements.
The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, said, on TB, that we need to look at systems and multilateral work. He is absolutely right, and I am very happy to meet with him to discuss that further.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his work on Halo and demining; I have had great conversations with his organisation, and I am very pleased to be able to continue to work with it.
Finally, I just want to say that we need to continue to back our brave humanitarians around the world. It is our mission and their mission to get life-saving assistance to those in greatest need. They are some of the most remarkable people that I have ever had the privilege to meet. They are engaged in the noblest of causes in the most difficult of situations. There is really no better place to end my remarks than on that note, because we all admire and respect what they do, often putting their lives at risk through a desire to support others. It is the very best of humanity that they embody, and the UK Government will continue to support them in all they do.
Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group, in particular to Amendment 372 from the Government, and Amendment 380, to which I have added my name. Before I speak to those, on Amendment 371B from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I have listened very carefully to the differences between “may intimidate” and “the intention to intimidate”. If I may, I think there may be a middle way through this and I hope we can use the time between Committee and Report to look at that and perhaps talk about how a reasonable person—or, for lawyers, the man on the Clapham omnibus—would see such acts. I accept that “may intimidate” may be slightly wide in terms of the purpose piece; I think it is very difficult to prove intention to intimidate, and we have seen that many times in Northern Ireland. So I make that suggestion in respect of that.
I also listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain—of course, a respected Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—had to say when he referred to the inalienable British right to protest. But of course he knows that, when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland was given powers by the Government to deal with parades and protests there. That was in the wake of difficulties surrounding parades and the rights of freedom of assembly, and those in nationalist areas did not want those parades to happen in their areas.
It is no secret that many unionists, including myself, were not supportive of the Parades Commission receiving those powers: we saw it as an unaccountable body taking decisions on parades, many of which have taken place not just for decades but for hundreds of years. The situation since that legislation went through is that everybody who organises a parade or protest in Northern Ireland has to put in an 11/1 form, which has become a very famous form in Northern Ireland, to the Police Service. We have to notify the police that a parade or a protest is taking place, and we have to tell them the route, the date, the time and the organiser of the parade or the protest, so that people can be held accountable.
I do not want, in the context of this group, to speak to the merits of the existence or, indeed, the decision-making of the Parades Commission, because I probably would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on that—the noble Lord today, not when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Rather, I want to look at what the commission can consider when making its decisions on whether to place conditions or limit a parade or a protest.
I think it is instructive that, in my part of the United Kingdom, the body taking decisions on contentious parades or protests can take into account the cumulative impact that such a parade or protest would have on the community. The legislation states:
“The Commission may issue a determination in respect of a proposed protest”
or parade. The conditions
“may include conditions as to the place at which the meeting may be held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it … In considering in any particular case”
whether a determination should happen,
“the Commission shall have regard to the guidelines”
and indeed the code of conduct. In its guidelines, which I have here, it takes into consideration
“any disruption to the life of the community which the meeting may cause”
or
“any impact which the meeting may have on relationships within the community”.
Indeed, the guidelines for the Parades Commission take into account the
“frequency of such public processions or related protests along the route”.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I shall speak to Amendments 372 and 380 and various other amendments in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for his kind remarks at the end of the previous group, but I fear that, after this speech, normal service might be resumed. There are many issues to cover in this group, and I will try to be as brief as possible.
Government Amendment 372 amends the Public Order Act 1986 to impose a duty on the police to consider so-called “cumulative disruption” caused by repeated protests in a given area. The amendment gives the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protests that are expected to be too disruptive. This amendment represents a grievous attack on the right to protest, which is vital to our democracy, and has many unintended consequences, as I shall outline. The overly broad framework would empower the police routinely to curb freedom of expression and assembly as exercised through peaceful protest. It would significantly expand the definition of serious disruption to include so-called cumulative disruption caused by repeated protests in an area. This would allow the police pre-emptively to prohibit peaceful demonstrations if, in their opinion, an area has been the site of too many protests, which is an extremely broad discretion.
Until this debate started, I had no idea that this provision is aimed at frequent protests outside synagogues. The amendment says nothing to that effect, and it has very broad application to all protests, so I shall carry on on that basis.
Presumably it would apply if the protests in question were organised by different groups who advocate for different causes. This could create a first-come, first-served version of free speech, where areas are given what could be described as a protest allowance at the whim of the local constabulary. The police would be within their rights to prohibit peaceful assemblies once that allowance had been used up. This opens up the concerning opportunity for groups of citizens to censor their political opponents by using up an area’s protest allowance before their opponents have had a chance to protest themselves.
Furthermore, as has already been said this evening, the amendment is silent on what constitutes an area. We do not know whether this power would permit the police to move a demonstration to a different part of a square, to another part of town or even to a difficult-to-reach rural area, resulting in decreased attendance and visibility. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the Committee on that.
Similarly, Amendment 372 does not specify within what timeframe disruption would have to be repeated to be considered cumulative. This is another question for the Minister. The suggestion that so-called cumulative disruption should be taken into account in considering conditions for restrictions or prohibitions of protests is also disproportionate. Will the Minister please explain why one person’s right to protest should be extinguished simply because somebody else has already protested in the same location about the same cause, or about a different cause?
What about causes that evolve or develop over time, legitimately calling for further protests to coincide with the next stage of public debate? The courts have also repeatedly concluded that a relevant consideration regarding the proportionality of Article 10 and Article 11 rights is whether the views giving rise to the protest relate to “very important issues”. That would de facto be more likely to apply to causes that have led to repeated protests than it would to causes that have given rise to a single protest. This provision, if enacted, would give the police an additional power to ban or curtail protests on the most important causes: the ones most worthy of protest and the ones most protected by the courts. Will the Minister please explain if that is the intention?
Amendment 372 is poorly drafted. It is far too broad to prevent the problems that I have described, and it gives the police far too much power to curtail or prevent peaceful protest on the most important matters. Government Amendments 372 and 380 should both be withdrawn or, if necessary, voted down.
Government Amendment 381 would create a new offence about protesting outside the homes of public officeholders. This may be sensible but should it not have a reasonable conduct defence, as appears in other harassment-type offences, to cover, for example, situations where a neighbour speaks amicably to a politician about a local issue as they are leaving home? Would it be proportionate to criminalise that perfectly normal interaction? That is another question for the Minister.
On Clause 124, which caused so much heat rather than light earlier, it goes without saying that worshipers must be free to access their places of worship, be they synagogues, mosques, churches, or whatever, and worshippers must be able to do so without intimidation or threats or fear of the same. But those rights are already fully protected by the Public Order Act 1986. Under the Act, conditions may be imposed on protests by senior police officers if they believe that the procession may result in serious public disorder or where the purpose of the organisers is the intimidation of others. Section 12(2)(a) of the Act specifically includes places of worship, so Clause 124 may be completely unnecessary.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, seek to clarify what is meant by “in the vicinity”. They are all well and good, but just about every place where people demonstrate is close to a church or another place of worship. For example, Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square would fail the test. Clause 124 could enable the police to ban or restrict just about any protest on that basis. That is probably not the intention, but it would be the result.
Amendment 378A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, would allow restrictions to be placed on protest or assembly if they take place in the vicinity of places used for “democratic decision-making”. Given the high standing of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in this House, I find this idea rather strange. It would restrict protest close to Parliament, which is where the people who make the decisions, the people the protesters most want to influence, are to be found. The whole point of protest is to engage in a democratic process and seek to persuade decision-makers to a particular point of view. If anything, protest is more proportionate where it takes place in the vicinity of decision-makers. There is no sensible argument for Amendment 378A; it should be rejected.
Turning briefly to Amendment 370A, I understand that the idea of designating as an “extreme criminal protest group” is something that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has been advocating for a long time. I oppose it because it is an oppressive and draconian restriction on the right to protest, in essence banning specific protest organisations. It is, of course, right that the law steps in to criminalise unlawful protest activity, but this is already done frequently on an individual basis. Criminalising association with others who share the same cause is wholly disproportionate; not everyone associated with a group shares any criminal intent. Designation or restriction of ECPGs will serve only to criminalise other law-abiding citizens because of their shared, but reasonably held, political views about a particular cause.
Taken as a whole, this group of amendments extends the regressive and anti-democratic tendencies of the previous Government—and now this one—to suppress or ban legitimate and peaceful protests in whatever way they can. Substantial pruning is required to get the Bill into a state where it no longer threatens our cherished democratic processes. Peaceful protest educates the public. It sparks debate. It creates the pressure needed for reform. In a healthy democracy, disagreement is not a threat but a sign that citizens care deeply about their society.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I support what I understand to be probing amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, but first I want to seek clarification from my noble friend the Minister on government Amendment 372. I do so from the perspective of someone who had direct responsibility for organising mass demonstrations when I was at the TUC, which now could be caught in this net.
First, can the Minister clarify the definition of disruption and whether that applies to conduct or location, and the safeguards that will be applied under “cumulative impact” to ensure that any restrictions and conditions imposed by the police are proportionate? As cumulative impact, as we have heard, will be applied collectively to demonstration organisers, this could lead to a rationing of protests in a particular area, presumably even when they are entirely peaceful. In practical terms, can the Minister explain how such a ration would be distributed between, as we have heard, potentially very different organisations with very different aims? Who will decide and on what basis or are organisations supposed to figure it out for themselves?
In central London, there are really only one or two routes, which have viable assembly points at the start and finish, available for very large demonstrations. How realistic is it for the Home Office to suggest, as it did in a press release, that the police could instruct organisers of national demonstrations to divert their demonstrations to alternative routes when in central London there may be none? Crucially, can the Minister tell us whether consideration of the cumulative impact of demonstrations will be weighed against the public’s right to protest in response to the cumulative impact of real-world events? For example, hundreds of thousands of people turned out for successive TUC marches through the 2010s—I recognise that not everybody here may have joined them, but plenty did—in response to the mounting harm that austerity and public service cuts were inflicting on workers, families and communities.
More recently, hundreds of thousands have joined demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Again, the frequency of these very large protests is not happening in a vacuum, nor is it divorced from the strength of public feeling. While the International Court of Justice may not reach its verdict on genocide in Gaza for some years, much of the UK population, according to a YouGov poll published in June last year, has already made its mind up. Have the Government really considered the societal impact of making expression through peaceful protest much more difficult?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I have just one large amendment in this group but I thought I would wait until the end—or what might be close to the end, with a bit of luck—before speaking to it, because it is different from others in the group. I had considered degrouping it, and now wish that I had, to deal with it at lunchtime on Thursday.
Before dealing with that, what a privilege it was to sit here and listen to the very powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who is not currently in his place, the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and those of my noble friend Lord Polak. What struck me was something that my noble friend said: when we hear the chants of “Support the intifada” and “From the river to the sea”, those are not just catchy phrases for protest marches. What they mean is kill the Jews, destroy the State of Israel and wipe out 8 million people. You cannot get more evil a hate crime than that.
However, my amendment is different and it is a terribly important one, if I may say so, because it would impose a duty on the Metropolitan Police to ensure access to Parliament. There have been disturbing incidents in recent years where the Met has failed to do so, and MPs and Peers could not access our home of democracy or had to run the gauntlet of a mob.
I need to take noble Lords through the recent history of this problem to let the Committee see how we have got to the current state and what I think we can do about it. The minutes of our State Opening on 17 July of the 2024-2026 Session state, under the heading “Stoppages in the Streets”:
“It was ordered that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Lords to and from this House during the sitting of Parliament; or to hinder Lords in the pursuit of their parliamentary duties on the Parliamentary Estate; and that the Lady Usher of the Black Rod attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner”.
That is our sessional order, which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner enforces, primarily through Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. It allows the police to issue directions to prevent street obstruction near Parliament during sittings.
The Commons used to pass the same Motion until 2005, but in 2003 the House of Commons Procedure Committee concluded that passing the sessional order did
“not confer any extra legal powers on the police”,
and the only way to ensure the police had the adequate powers to achieve the result intended by the sessional order was through legislation. The committee recommended that, until such legislation came into force, the House should continue with the sessional order in a modified form
“to reflect the House’s concerns and to act as a marker that it expects Members’ access to Parliament to be maintained as far as the existing law allows”.
The Government implemented that and included provisions in the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 intended to meet the requirement identified by the committee. The House of Commons then dropped the sessional order in 2005.
In 2013, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that the practice of passing sessional orders in the House of Commons be restored. In response, the Government said that they were
“not convinced that their revival would serve any legal or practical purpose”.
The Government are legally right. The sessional orders are not statute law and have no legal effect, but they had a massive symbolic effect, and the Met used to keep access free for all Members of both Houses.
Restrictions on protests around Parliament were introduced under Sections 132 to 138 of SOCPA 2005. In those sections, it says:
“The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates”,
and that in giving that authorisation, the commissioner should try to ensure, as far as possible, that people were free to enter Parliament. We moved from an instruction that no hindrance must be permitted, to one where the commissioner can decide on a case by case basis to grant protest.
Sections 132 to 138 were abolished by Section 141 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and replaced with restrictions that applied only to the controlled area of Parliament Square, which was delineated for the first time. That was, and is, very sensible. Under Section 143 of the 2011 Act, it is no longer an offence for demonstrations to be held without the authorisation of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. However, a constable or authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is doing, or is about to do, a prohibited activity may direct the person to cease doing that activity or not to start doing it. Noble Lords should note the term prohibited activity.
Much of the emphasis of the sections in that Act is on tents and equipment in Parliament Square, the controlled use of Whitehall and loudspeakers. Why was that? Older Members of the Committee will recall that, for 10 years, a Mr Brian Haw had an anti-war tent on the grass opposite the MPs’ entrance at Carriage Gates, and the Government and MPs were very vexed that there seemed to be nothing they could do about it and no law to remove him. That is the thrust of the parliamentary provisions in the 2011 Act, to deal with that one man and his tent. I believe he died just as the Act come into force. By accident, the need to secure access to Parliament became downgraded once again. The emphasis was on prohibiting tents, accoutrements and loudspeakers outside the Commons.
Technically, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his officers have full legal powers to ensure that MPs, Peers, officers and staff have free and unfettered access at all times, but the reality is that the duty to do so has been subliminally watered down over the years. We have moved from a position that protests outside Parliament had to have permission to one where they did not need permission but the Met could stop them if they thought it necessary. There is no duty for free and unfettered access. That is why my amendment is necessary, without disturbing 99% of the current controls, powers and responsibilities.
Why is it necessary? In November 2021, Insulate Britain, with more than 60 activists, blocked two main roads leading to the Parliamentary Estate, including Bridge Street and Peers’ Entrance. In April 2019, Extinction Rebellion blocked access in Parliament Square, and the police had to take action to maintain a clear route for access for MPs and Peers reaching the estate. In October 2022, Just Stop Oil activists, as part of a month-long occupation of Westminster, sat in the road surrounding Parliament Square, specifically aiming to disrupt access to the seat of government.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 added an offence of blocking vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate, but it said nothing about pedestrians. The current laws are therefore slightly inadequate.
The first thing in my proposed new clause that the Metropolitan Police commissioner would see are the words:
“Duty of the Metropolitan Police to ensure access to Parliament”.
It begins:
“It is the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to secure that members of either House of Parliament, all parliamentary officers and staff have free and unfettered access to the Palace of Westminster controlled area on any day on which either House is sitting”.
That puts access to Parliament front and centre of the legislation, sending a very strong signal that democracy trumps protest—you can still protest if you want to, but do not block access to Parliament.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that, under ECHR laws, there is no right to protest. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not refer to a right to protest. The relevant rights are the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Article 11. Moreover, Articles 10 and 11 are qualified rights, in that they can be restricted where it is necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, prevent crime and protect the rights and freedoms of others. I submit that the rights and freedoms of others include Members and staff of both Houses. We should also be protected to do our job, because we are the “others”. We have allowed a myth to grow that there is a right to block access to Parliament as part of a non-existent right to protest.
I have a few other small amendments. The 2011 Act designates the controlled area around Parliament but does not stretch as far as 1 Millbank, which did not open until after the 2011 Act passed. I have included it, as well as the road from Downing Street to Parliament, since, although the current law states that Parliament Street is part of the controlled area, Downing Street may be on that no man’s land between Whitehall and Parliament.
The 2022 Act added an offence of blocking vehicular access. I have added that pedestrian access for Members and staff must be maintained, and a requirement that any protesters must be kept back at least 10 metres from pavements used by Members to access Parliament. That would not stop protests; it would just let Peers and Members get in.
Apart from these small changes, I have retained the whole structure of the existing legislation, but with a new duty requirement on the Met. Putting at the beginning of the legislation a sentence that it is the duty of the Metropolitan Police to secure access to Parliament is more than just tokenistic or symbolic. We have allowed our freedoms to access and egress Parliament without hindrance to be eroded over the past 20 years. We have permitted a belief that people protesting outside our gates have more rights and are more important than the legislators working inside.
It cannot be acceptable that the very people entrusted with the responsibility to ensure our legal rights and freedoms under the law cannot get into the building to do it. My proposed new clause would restore that balance. It would make it clear to the commissioner where his primary duty lies, and it should make it safer for all of us, as parliamentarians and staff, to carry out all our duties. I commend my proposed new clause to the Committee.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this huge group was always going be pivotal for us to discuss, and it is full of moral dilemmas. I am genuinely torn on many of the amendments; I do not know where I stand on some of them. I therefore appreciate the debates that we have had so far. It has been very worth while to hear the different sides of the argument.
When the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, spoke earlier, he stirred me up. Every time I say “stirred up” I think of stirring up hatred; it was not that, but his contribution was very important. He emphasised that a lot is at stake, which it is. On the first day in Committee, I said that I knew that simply reiterating the formal importance of the right to protest is not sufficient for the period that we are living in, because we face new types of protest. We face some vicious and abusive gatherings that call themselves protests. That leaves somebody like me in a difficult dilemma. I am a free-speecher, but I have witnessed the visceral rise of Jew hatred in public and on our streets, so I am torn.
I have a lot of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lords, Lord Walney, Lord Polak, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Pannick, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, to name just some noble Lords, and I understand where they are coming from. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, himself admitted, there are a lot of existing powers that are not used. That strikes me as the problem.
We have a policing crisis and powers that are not being used, for cultural or deeper political reasons, so we try to compensate by making more laws. That will not solve the problem of the culture of normalisation of antisemitism—if anything, those new laws, which might also not be enforced, could be a distraction. Despite my reservations, my fear is that the deeper problem will lead to bad lawmaking and abandoning key principles that stand up for western civilisation, democracy and so on, because we are so desperate to do something.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 370A, which seeks to grant the Secretary of State the power to designate and restrict extreme criminal protest groups—and I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
Last Monday, the Free Speech Union was the victim of an attack by a group that meets the definition in this amendment of an extreme criminal protest group. It is a group called Bash Back, which is a militant pro-trans group; it broke into the website of the Free Speech Union, stole confidential information about some of our donors and then published that information on its website and its social media accounts. To get that information removed, we had to apply for an emergency injunction; we then had to go back to court to put that injunction on a firmer footing; and there will be a third hearing or trial at which we try to make that injunction permanent. In the meantime, even though the information has been removed from the group’s website and social media accounts, that website and those social media accounts are still up. It has been extremely traumatic and disruptive—our website is still down. Applying for emergency injunctions and seeing that process through is by no means cheap; it is not entirely covered by our insurance.
One of the arguments we have heard this evening as to why the Secretary of State should not be granted this power is that the existing criminal law framework is adequate to deal with extreme criminal protest groups. I am glad to say that the Metropolitan Police does appear to be taking seriously what is a criminal offence—the data breach and the publication of that confidential data, in our case. The pro-trans group Bash Back has been active for at least six months and the criminal law as it stands has not been adequate to restrain it. This group took responsibility for vandalising the constituency office of Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health. In addition to smashing up his constituency office in Ilford North, it daubed the words “Child Killer” on the wall of his office because he said that he does not want the NHS to prescribe puberty blockers any longer. No one, as far as I know, has been interviewed by the police in connection with that violent assault on the offices of a Member of Parliament: certainly, no one has been arrested. The group followed up with an attack on a feminist conference in Brighton, and the threats and intimidation meant that that conference could not take place.
More recently, the group launched a violent attack on the offices of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, presumably because of the guidance note that the commission submitted to the Government about how to interpret the Supreme Court’s judgment about the meaning of the word “sex” in the Equality Act, which presumably the group does not agree with. It daubed graffiti on the walls of the office and used hammers to smash the glass on the office’s front. I do not suppose that I need to remind noble Lords that the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission at the time was the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and one of the commissioners at the time was my noble friend Lady Cash. This is an extreme criminal protest group which has seemingly been allowed to operate with impunity because the existing—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Forgive me for interrupting—and I have hiccups, which is why I am trying not to interrupt—but the more important point about the attack on the EHRC’s London offices is that it is in a large building shared by several other organisations. Not only were the staff of the EHRC threatened by the very act of the attack, but the other organisations that use the building were also extremely disturbed by what happened, and there have been repercussions for the EHRC as a consequence as a tenant. I cannot say any more than that, but I wanted to make that point.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention.
The group in question advertises the fact that it breaks the law in order to shut down and silence its political opponents, people with whom it disagrees. It advertises the fact that it engages in criminal activity to advance its point of view, its agenda, on its website and its social media accounts. It uses its social media accounts to recruit additional members of the group. It operates with impunity in the public square, so I do not think it can plausibly be claimed that the existing criminal law is sufficient to rein in a group like this.
Now, I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that we should be cautious before granting the Secretary of State additional powers to restrict the activities of protest groups. But I think it is worth bearing in mind that one of the reasons, perhaps, for the overdesignation of groups as terrorist groups under the powers granted to the Secretary of State by the Terrorism Act may be because the Secretary of State does not have enough flexible ways of responding to the threats posed by extreme criminal protest groups. Either he or she designates them as terrorist groups or they are allowed to continue to organise, protest and recruit. This would be an additional power—less extreme, I think, than designating a group a terrorist group.
One critical difference is that if a group is designated a terrorist group and someone expresses support publicly for that group, that can be a criminal offence. That is not the proposal in the case of what the consequences would be of designating a group an extreme criminal protest group. That is one respect in which it would be a less extreme restriction than designating a group a terrorist group. I hope that there would be less tendency to overdesignate.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so grateful for the thoughtful way that the noble Lord is attempting to grapple with these difficult issues. Does he remember the spy cops scandal, for example? Does he understand the difficulty when we constantly try to find ways to treat people who are not terrorists, but who we disagree with even quite viscerally, as quasi-terrorists? Does he understand the difference between the importance of prosecuting individuals for their actions and the dangers of guilt by association, with its chilling effect on free speech? I say this to him as a free speech campaigner.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. The issue is not that the groups in question are advocating points of view with which I profoundly disagree. That is not the basis on which I am supporting this amendment. It is that the groups in question advocate and engage in criminal activity to restrict the liberties of others.
I anticipate that people will say that it is hypocritical of me to support this amendment because I am a free speech campaigner. But the Free Speech Union has always made it clear that we do not think that the right to free speech includes the right to break the law to try to silence other people and to try to deprive them of their right to free speech through fear and intimidation. That is why I have been able to reconcile myself to this amendment, which is an attractive alternative to designating groups such as Palestine Action as terrorist groups.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I pay tribute to him in this context, because of his own lived experiences during the explosion of demos in the last few years in this area, and his own issues in obtaining access to the Palace. Likewise, I have taken testimony for Policy Exchange, which I direct, from my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. My noble friends’ lived experiences should be noted. Of course, it is not just them. Overall, it is part of a coarsening of political life, perhaps as a whole in this country, but certainly in this particular area in which we work, where we legislate.
It is not just about those we agree with and those we do not agree with. It has been said, by one or two speakers, that we do not like Palestine Action, and we do not like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. This problem pre-dates 7 October. It predates the explosions in those demos. It relates to Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, which I do not agree with. But it also relates to the conduct, for example, of some ex-servicemen, whom I agree with on legacy issues and lawfare in Northern Ireland but who I have seen behave extremely badly towards some female colleagues of mine who do not work in this place. Similarly, I did not like the conduct of every person who was recently engaged in the farmers’ demonstration here; again, it is a cause which I support. It is across the piece and across the political spectrum. That is a problem which we need to take account of when we say that it is just people we do or do not like.
The issue at hand is the idea—which has been implied by one or two speakers in this debate—that we will become like Belarus or some other right-wing, authoritarian country if we go ahead with these amendments. The problem here is the very reverse: it is not the excessive power of the British state but its weakness and its failure to protect us—most dramatically demonstrated by the demonstrations that we have seen.
The blunt truth, as my noble friend has pointed out, is that too often we have had too many difficulties getting in and out of this House. Indeed, at some stages, we simply cannot get in at all. In my interviews with some senior police officers, they are basically saying, “You cannot seriously expect us to privilege the political classes by having extra protections” of the kind that my noble friend has talked about. Conversely, some noble Lords are quite demoralised themselves; when I have asked them about this, they say, “Well, we’re not very popular, so we’ve got to suck it up”. That is a tragic situation. What is so attractive to me about my noble friend’s amendment is that it asserts the absoluteness of our right to go in through the plenitude of entrances and exits of this House.
We all know that the future of this Chamber is being debated all the time, but for so long as we are here, we must have the right to do the work that we come here to do. One of the glories of today’s debate—including even the speeches of those whom I disagree with—is that we have all been able to get here to this House. I never want again to be in a situation where people cannot get in or out, or feel frightened to do so.
As my noble friend pointed out, the chilling effect is not just for us or for members of staff—I do not think we should be too precious about it; all of us are in public life, so noble Lords will have had death threats and various other forms of intimidation. The status quo ante, as described by my noble friend Lord Blencathra —which certainly obtained when he was first elected to the lower House in 1983—is light years away. We have to revert to that. That is why the necessary rectification that he is proposing is so important.
I agree with my noble friend on several other things, including charting the demise of the Sessional Orders in the House of Commons, and the legislative changes relating to protests in proximity to the Palace. He has already provided examples of the disruptive and obstructive protests around here in recent years. He was able to do that because it has increasingly become a feature of all our lives, and that needs to come to an end as quickly as possible.
There is one foreign example that is important for us all to note: the Dáil of the Oireachtas in Dublin. The Republic of Ireland provides protection for the workings of its national parliament through Section 7(1) of its Offences Against the State Act 1939, which forbids the obstruction or intimidation of any branch of government, including the legislature, from carrying out their functions. If we have anything to look at, it is among other foreign legislatures that are perhaps more zealous and solicitous in the protection of their well-being than we have seen in some quarters here in recent years.
Finally, there is the question of who is doing the demonstrations. As I said, I have been distressed by watching people on my side of the debate not behave properly. I remember watching Anna Soubry, whom I disagreed with on Brexit, being abused. But when one looks at recent history, one will find that we need to go back to a far more rigorous set of processes, where our needs are placed squarely—because of our public duties, not because of any private advantage—to ensure that we can discharge our responsibilities for as long as any of us choose to remain in this place.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the proposed legislation, in particular Clause 124 and Amendment 372, which would ban marches outside places of worship. Except, of course, it would not. It would empower a senior police officer to make a decision specifically if access to those places of worship is being denied to people who desire that access. So, the point the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, made about this meaning you cannot have any marches in London because London is full of places of worship would have been a good point, but it is only where there is going to be access—in other words, specific services—and it is only where a senior police officer makes that decision. I am not sure that that is right.
When there have been complaints about the terrible marches, which I will come on to in a minute, politicians have just put their hands up and said, “Terribly sorry, nothing we can do. It’s not down to us. It’s down to the police”. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an excellent speech also made the point that we are piling on the legislation, but the police are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, as is. That is my reservation about some of this. It is perhaps for people with better legal abilities and experience than mine to think through how we might circumvent a situation where, for whatever reason and in whatever part of the country, the senior police officer is not taking the action that one might have hoped they would.
I speak also as president of Westminster Synagogue. Westminster Synagogue is on the corner of Rutland Gardens and Knightsbridge, not, as some people think, in the Palace of Westminster. We have had two marches past us recently, both on a Saturday. We negotiated with the police to ensure they did not pass on a Saturday morning, when we had services, but they did pass by us at lunchtime, so we had to abandon our community lunch events. We were told we had to leave the building before we had the lunch that we had planned.
On the second march, the demonstrators stopped some 20 metres away from our building and continued chanting while they stopped marching for some six minutes. It could be audibly heard from inside the building. I am sympathetic to the amendments that want to be specific about marches having be further away from the building than just in the area.
As your Lordships know, each and every one of the marches demonstrating about Gaza has contained vile, antisemitic slogans. These chants are not the sorts of chants we would have heard on British streets over many years, or indeed centuries, in marches by people wanting to express a view. These marches are populated by some calling for the extinction of Jewish life in Israel. On their call for Palestine to be free from the river to the sea, I had to explain to my daughter, when we were in Manchester and heard these chants, that that meant the slaughter and eradication of Jews in Israel. Their chants for a global intifada, or even death to the IDF, are chilling.
I salute the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his anti-apartheid work and his campaigning. I have also marched in campaigns on other issues, but neither of us has called for the eradication of a people. Shockingly, we know that the calls for the death of innocent Israeli and Jewish citizens were answered in Manchester on the holiest day of the Jewish year, and again on Bondi beach on another Jewish festival. Yet, they would do it again. We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow anything which accelerates the radicalisation of lone wolves, or even gangs, against our own citizens—and they are being radicalised by these chants.
Of course, many of the people on the marches are no more than useful idiots who have no idea what they are chanting for. When questioned—I have seen a video—about which river and which sea, they have no idea. But others know exactly what they are doing. They are trying to stir up community hate against the indigenous British Jewish population and anyone connected to the State of Israel, which they want destroyed, even to the point of an Israeli restaurant in Notting Hill, as we discussed earlier. They are not a response to perceived, although mainly false, injustices in Gaza. We know that to be the case, because the protests started well before the IDF went into Gaza. In fact, the first one in the UK was on 8 October. That was well before any event took place in Gaza, but after the horrific crimes by Hamas in southern Israel.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, mindful of time, I will limit my comments to the first amendment of the group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Young.
A few people have mentioned that laws already cover the incidents referred to by groups such as Bash Back; I will focus on Bash Back because, as my noble friend Lord Young referenced, I was a commissioner at the EHRC at the time of that attack. There are laws that currently cover those incidents. There are criminal laws: there is aiding and abetting, criminal damage, attempted criminal damage, intimidation, harassment—all sorts of laws cover those attacks. But they are not implemented, and that is the second point I will come to in a moment: the behaviour of the police currently.
At the moment, when you have an organisation such as Bash Back advertising, encouraging, boasting about and celebrating criminal plans and then executed criminal acts, the police have a mountain to climb in order to identify all the individuals, all the individual offences, and the means by which to prosecute each one. I support this amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has very thoughtfully set out a means by which, when a group is advertising and encouraging criminal behaviour, and when a group—let us be honest—is seeking not to express an opinion but to close down the opinions of others using criminal behaviour, we have a means of addressing that, and doing so early, facilitating a way of managing the safety of the others.
I will just add that, for the individual members of staff in the building, and within the EHRC, in the particular incident of violence referenced by my noble friend Lord Young, all the windows were smashed in what was quite a large building owned by other people. It was really very frightening for the mostly young people who were there. I cannot say more than that at this time, but it was frightening. My noble friend Lord Young and I are both quite tough cookies, so for us it was probably easier to manage, but for the individual young people who experienced that, it was quite something, and it leads them to a situation where they have to question where they are working, what they are doing, how they are going to behave, and how they are going to express themselves in their workplace.
At the moment, although laws exist to address those individual events, they do not assist the police in the way that they need to be assisted, and nor do they assist the Government in the way they needed to be assisted to address Palestine Action. This is a step in between which would assist greatly, whether with Bash Back, Extinction Rebellion or any of the other groups that deploy criminal activity.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I wonder if I might interject. The noble Baroness has raised Bash Back, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young. In its advertising, it makes a great deal of face coverings—which we discussed earlier today in the debate on whether Clause 118 stand part of the Bill—and the fact that no one needs to worry about being detected for this criminal damage because they can wear face coverings.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am grateful for that reminder. It is another point in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The overall position of the group is much more easily managed by the police when there are deliberate attempts to evade any type of prosecution.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we have had a difficult and long debate on a major group on public order. Because it is so late and because there have been some central points, I shall confine what I say to a few of those.
I turn first, if I may, to Amendment 370A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on extreme criminal protest groups. I accept, and indeed agree, that, at first consideration, it appears beneficial to have an alternative to proscription that does not involve the Terrorism Act and does not involve branding peaceful protest as an offence of terrorism. That would, of course, be the effect of Amendment 370A. I note that, in answer to an intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, confirmed that it was his clear view that that would be the position. Indeed, I have spoken on a number of occasions against the use of the Terrorism Act to make any support for a proscribed organisation, however peaceable, an offence under the Terrorism Act.
The designation provision in the proposed new clause from the noble Lord, Lord Walney—designation as an extreme criminal protest group—is not the problem, because there is a condition in proposed new paragraph (a) that
“the group has as its purpose, object or practice the deliberate commission of imprisonable offences, including but not limited to sabotage, criminal damage, obstruction of critical national infrastructure, or serious public order offences”.
At proposed new paragraphs (b) and (c), it refers to
“the intention of influencing public policy”,
and “democratic functions” and
“a risk of serious harm to public safety”.
The effect is the concern, not the designation as an extreme criminal protest group. The effect would be to criminalise extreme criminal protest groups’ activities to include in the formulation of offences under the proposed new clause, particularly at paragraph (b), public advocacy or the dissemination of groups’ materials, and those are offences that would be similar to the offence of support for a proscribed organisation under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, or offences of being a supporter, which can be proved by suspicion.
Amendment 370A would, I suggest, constitute a curb on free speech and on the legitimate freedom of expression, and would therefore run the same risks as the Terrorism Act of prosecutions of peaceful protesters. I am afraid I question the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that criminal behaviour of the kinds that he described is not covered by other criminal legislation. I note the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that other legislation may cover such behaviours but may not be implemented by the police. That may highlight a need for an alternative approach to policing, rather than for new legislation of the kind advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Walney.
Although I understand and applaud the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for a less serious alternative to the Terrorism Act, also advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in practice, I doubt that it would be an attractive alternative to proscription under the Terrorism Act. Indeed, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, had an answer to the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on the chilling effect of limiting freedom of expression with the criminal law. I doubt that the amendment would have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks, so I do not support it.
The second area of concern that I would like to cover today is Clause 124 and the amendments to that clause—Amendments 371A to 371F—persuasively spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I support the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, of the word “vicinity”, also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady. It is quite simply too vague. For my part, I am not convinced, for a number of reasons, that a 50-metre limit would produce the intended result either, so I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on that.
As I understood it—I will be corrected if I am wrong, and I invite the Minister to comment on this—the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, contended that the words “may intimidate” should be changed to,
“has the purpose of intimidating individuals accessing that place of worship … and would intimidate”.
I suggest that that may not be right. This part of the clause may be saved by the words in subsection (2)(c). Again, this is a point I would like the Minister to consider, because the clause requires that for an offence to be committed it must be
“in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from … accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities”.
The result has to be achieved before the offence is committed.
However, it is quite clear, as my noble friend Lord Strasburger said, that it is completely right to protect the rights of worshippers to worship at their synagogues, mosques or other places of worship—although as my noble friend pointed out, Clause 124 may be unnecessary in view of other legislation. But subject to clarification and limitation, the purposes of Clause 124 seem to me to be right.
The third argument that I wish to consider concerns government Amendment 372 and the whole question of cumulative disruption. For my part, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the principal object appears to be a legitimate one to avoid repeated disruption on successive occasions of particular areas where there are places of worship, as in the streets around synagogues. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned protests and assemblies on repeated Sabbath days in the vicinity of synagogues.
Weighing the right to protest in balance against the interference with the rights and freedoms of others, as we all agree that we must, it is plainly right that the freedom of Jewish people to go to synagogue on successive Saturdays without repeated protests amounting to harassment of them should be protected. If that is what cumulative disruption is to mean then it is plainly right to take account of it. However, the use of the word “area” is, I suggest, subject to the same flaw of imprecision as the word “vicinity” that we considered earlier. I invite the Minister to consider between now and Report whether the use of the word “area” is appropriate.
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.
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.
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.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, it has indeed been a mammoth grouping. I am grateful to all noble Lords for the eloquence, passion and knowledge that they have brought to the many amendments that have been discussed. I will be happy to withdraw my amendment, pending Report, but I urge the Government to keep an open mind on this. I shall make a couple of points on why I think that this is really important.
My Amendment 380, on Section 13 of the Public Order Act and cumulative disruption, is important for this issue specifically but also on a wider issue. I do not need to tell my noble friend the Minister about the difficult position that much of the Jewish community in this country feel they are in, given the challenges that they face—but also in not necessarily always knowing that this Government have their back. There is real peril for the Government in saying to the Jewish community, “Yes, we hear you on cumulative disruption, and finally we are moving”, after years, but then not doing sufficient to make a genuine difference on protests. The proposals in Section 13 are absolutely in tune with what the Government have already put down; they do not prejudge the Macdonald review, any more than their own amendments do. I urge them to keep an open mind on that issue.
On a final, wider point, there have been eloquent speeches on both sides. Given the particular eloquence of those who have argued against the kind of changes that I have proposed and that the Government are bringing forward, I think that it is really important to acknowledge the situation that we are in. I took the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that it could be dangerous, if wrongly applied, to overly restrict protests around buildings that are important to democracy, such as Parliament, but let us just remember that two Members of Parliament have been assassinated for their political beliefs in recent years—our friend Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. We have a public risk register that suggests that the assassination of a political figure is one of the highest threats that we have. We had a situation in recent years when Parliament was surrounded by an angry mob, and the Speaker of the House of Commons was so concerned for the safety of MPs that he changed the regulations.
This is not an idle thing about MPs being able to take a bit of rough and tumble, and because someone had glory days in the 1970s in the anti-apartheid movement then, frankly, anything goes. We are in a really serious situation as a country, and it deserves to be taken seriously by this Parliament and this Government.
“24A Field Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Memorial, Whitehall, London. 24B Field Marshal The Viscount Alanbrooke Memorial, Whitehall, London.24C Field Marshal The Viscount Slim Memorial, Whitehall, London.24D The Women of World War II Memorial, Whitehall, London.24E Field Marshal The Earl Haig Memorial, Whitehall, London.24F George, Duke of Cambridge Memorial, Whitehall, London.24G Equestrian Statue of King George IV, Trafalgar Square, London.24H Major General Sir Henry Havelock Memorial, Trafalgar Square, London.24I General Sir Charles James Napier Memorial, Trafalgar Square, London.24J Air Marshal The Viscount Portal Memorial, Victoria Embankment Gardens, London.24K Fleet Air Arm Memorial, Victoria Embankment Gardens, London.24L Korean War Memorial, Victoria Embankment Gardens, London.24M Air Marshal The Viscount Trenchard Memorial, Victoria Embankment Gardens, London.24N Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial, Victoria Embankment Gardens, London.24O Chindit Memorial, Victoria Embankment Gardens, London.24P The Battle of Britain Monument, Victoria Embankment, London.24Q Royal Air Force Memorial, Victoria Embankment, London.24R Boadicea and Her Daughters Memorial, Westminster Bridge, London.”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 370B, I shall speak to my further Amendment 370C. I must admit that I felt a little bit indulgent when I asked for them to be taken separately—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said, the previous group was rather a large one, which took us four and a quarter hours from start to finish. I hope that we can be a bit brisker in this group.
As vice-president of the Public Statues and Sculpture Association, I welcome measures in the Bill to protect some of our most venerable monuments. There is a long and lively history of such memorials serving as a backdrop to or focus of protest. As key ingredients of our public realm, it is understandable—perhaps even desirable—that they continue to form part of our national conversations today.
As long as those protests leave no lasting damage, many, including, I think, many of the people who are memorialised in them, might well say, “Fair enough”, but war memorials and memorials to wartime leaders hold a special significance in our national life. They stand as monuments to those who gave their lives for the freedom and prosperity that we now enjoy, including, of course, the freedom to protest. It is an insult to subjects and sculptors alike if these monuments are desecrated or dragooned into regular and unthinking protests. It is especially distressing when it happens to monuments that commemorate conflicts of which veterans or bereaved families are still among us.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 370B and 370C—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
We agreed that we would finish at about 11 pm, which we have come to. I suggest that we adjourn further debate on this group of amendments.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not think that the group will take long, if the Minister is happy to respond.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I am conscious that we agreed 11 pm with the House staff. If it is going to be quick, then that is fine. But we do not want to be sitting here later, because it is not fair on the House staff. We agreed 11 pm.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I have about four minutes, if that is acceptable. I do not think there are many other speakers in this crowded House tonight who wish to speak on it. I am in complete agreement with the list of memorials to be added to Schedule 12. They should be protected. All we are seeking to do here is add that there are some important ones missing. It is not a technicality; it is a matter of national memory, public safety and simple consistency in the law.
These additions matter because memorials named in the amendments are at the heart of our civic life. They stand in Whitehall, Trafalgar Square, Victoria Embankment and Parliament Square. That is where the nation gathers. That is where tourists and schoolchildren come to learn. That is where the machinery of Government operates. They are not just isolated pieces of stone and bronze; they are focal points for our national life and public ritual. They commemorate the service, sacrifice and leadership of men and women whose actions shaped our history and whose memory we owe to future generations.
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.