Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working very hard on the Chelsea Football Club issue. It is quite difficult legally, but my noble friend is right to remind us about it and we are working on it at pace. I hear what he says about development spending and I would expect him to say nothing else. This is not a decision that anyone has taken lightly or glibly; it is a decision that had to be taken, because we needed to act quickly in this situation. We must go after Russian assets as well, but we needed to take this decision today to make sure that we have the investment in defence to provide the stability and security that we all need.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is not wrong. Obviously, it would be great to be able to do all the things that she describes everywhere that we would like to do them, but we have to be honest and realistic. At this moment, we had to make a decision to invest more in defence for the reasons that we all understand. It is a trade-off. This is not a decision with no consequence or that we are entirely pleased to be making, but one that I am proud that we have made. It is a clear choice. It will keep the world and our citizens safer. That is the right thing for this Government to have done.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Part of the defence review will examine exactly that question. What has become clear as this conflict has progressed is that part of the battle is about defence production and capability, so our decisions on spending today will enable us to support Ukraine more securely into the future.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on these Benches are deeply appreciative of the action taken by the Prime Minister? He has had to make unbelievably difficult decisions, but the problem is that he will have to make even more difficult decisions in the future.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is undoubtedly true, but I believe that he is the right person to be in that particular role at this particular time, because making difficult decisions is his job and what he is good at. I think he made a good decision today, and I have every confidence that he will continue in that way.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Earl Attlee

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on life-saving equipment. It deals with a specific issue in relation to criminal damage: the effect of vandalism on safety equipment.

Noble Lords who were present in Committee will have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton speak about the death a young man from Rotherham, Sam Haycock. His parents, Simon and Gaynor Haycock, went to see their MP, Sarah Champion, who moved an amendment in the other place. Sam went swimming in Ulley reservoir in Rotherham in May 2021. He was leaving school that day and was just 16 years old. He was helping a friend who was in trouble in the water. At this reservoir in Rotherham—I believe that this is not unique to it—there was a throw line with a lifebelt attached to it that you can throw into the water to help someone in trouble. The problem was that it was kept in a locked cupboard and, to access it, you need to phone 999 and get a PIN from the police. Obviously, this takes time, and when someone is in distress in the water, you do not have time. The delay in getting the throw line might well, and in this case did, have tragic consequences. It is behind a locked door with a PIN to prevent vandalism of the safety equipment.

In regional media, I have found several similar instances where life-saving equipment has been vandalised. One was at Salford Quays. Manchester Council felt it lacked the ability to prevent and deal with this, so it has taken to using public space protection orders to try to deal with the issue. There was also a case in Uckfield in Sussex where a defibrillator was rendered unusable by vandals. These acts clearly cause costly damage but, most importantly, they also pose a very clear risk to life and can be shown to have cost lives in some instances.

The amendment is very straightforward: it proposes that it is made a specific offence to intend

“to destroy or damage any property which is considered life-saving equipment, including life-belts, life jackets and defibrillators.”

In terms of criminal damage, the value of what is damaged may be relatively minimal in the case of a lifebelt and a throw line, compared to other criminal damage offences. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in Committee, it would already be an offence to vandalise such equipment, but it matters a great deal that the law should indicate that this is something regarded with particular hostility because of the cost to life, including that of Simon and Gaynor’s precious son, Sam.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness in moving her amendment. This might not be something that we want to send back to the Commons today, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us what he will do about this problem, because of the effects so ably described by the noble Baroness.