Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this debate. I declare my interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK. I shall focus on four points: funding, domestic homicide rates among minority ethnic women, spiritual abuse, and transnational abandonment.

No funding was pledged to tackle domestic abuse in the last Budget, which was surprising given Labour’s manifesto commitment to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%. The current funding crisis and the rise in employer national insurance will result in many women’s organisations scaling back their services, taking away vital support for domestic abuse victims. Can the Minister provide assurance that the next Budget will announce funding to tackle domestic abuse?

Domestic homicide rates for minority ethnic women are around 22% higher. This issue can be addressed only if we know why it is happening. Will the Government agree to carry out a public consultation exercise to find out what the contributing factors are to the higher rates? This will help to save lives.

Spiritual abuse is not legally defined and is not limited to abuse by faith leaders. It is also a form of domestic abuse, where families and partners may misuse religion to control and manipulate women and children in particular. A legal definition could help to better recognise this form of abuse and hold perpetrators to account. Will the Government consider having a legal definition of spiritual abuse? Will the Minister write to me about the number of spiritual abuse cases recorded by the police in the last five years?

Transnational abandonment is another form of domestic abuse. This is when—usually—a husband takes his wife abroad on the pretence of a holiday and leaves her there, sometimes with children. The wife is usually on a spousal visa waiting for indefinite leave to remain. Helplines such as the one that I run are then left to apply for documents and pay for flights to get the women and children back into the UK. In the first six months of 2024, there were 28 transnational abandonment cases.

Being abandoned in this way is traumatising. It is time to make this a specific criminal offence. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for treating women as though they are property that can be discarded in this way. Recently in Australia, a man who had deceived his wife into leaving the country left her in Sudan. He was then convicted of exit trafficking and sentenced to more than four years in prison. It is time for perpetrators of this type of domestic abuse to also be convicted in the UK. Will the Government consider a law change here?

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, may I make a brief intervention to suggest that it is not always men abusing women? I am very familiar with women who control the behaviour and lives of their spouses, over many years, with threats that often involve children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the assurance that I will take that back and draw it to the attention of Diana Johnson, the Police Minister, directly, so that she is aware of the issue. The general point here is that Government, as well as regulating, can lead.

I think that the points the noble Baroness, Lady May, made are sound and good. Those are not things I have always said of her, but I mean it in the nicest possible way—we have had several discussions over many years on Home Office responsibilities. I agree with her on this, and I hope that we can work together on those points.

There was also a range of discussion about modern technology. I think it has a role to play. We want to work with the police to ensure that we improve that information, which also relates to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just made. We need data-driven tools and algorithms to track and target high-harm offenders. That again goes to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned earlier. We also need to look at the issue raised by a number of Members of the House on prevention and education. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, herself, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other Members mentioned how we improve standards and teach children, male and female—I suggest, in this context, particularly male children—to be respectful, have healthy relationships and understand the meaning of consent, and ensure that they grow up to be adults who, wherever we can, we put prior activity in for to prevent poor behaviour downstream in due course

Throughout all this, the needs of victims are central. My noble friend Lady Hazarika was very focused on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as the Victims’ Commissioner, self-evidently has a focus on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, also put at the heart of things how the support of the voluntary sector can help victims as a whole. We know that access to housing, particularly when people cannot return to housing, is important. That is a real priority for government, and I am pleased that this Government have announced a funding increase of £30 million to a total investment of £160 million in the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant of 2025-26 to ensure that local councils can provide front-line accommodation services to help support victims in their workplace.

Housing is important, but victims also need holistic, wraparound services. That involves the National Health Service and schools understanding domestic abuse and victims getting appropriate support. We need to focus on the importance of specialist services, with tailored support for victims and survivors in due course. That all takes resource. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, all looked at the question of resources. There is a spending reviewing process, and there will be a spending review for the three years post 2026-27. The Government have to make choices, and these are representations that will be made. A police settlement will be announced next week, which covers a number of the areas funded. We will have to reflect on that. I know again, from representations from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and others, that resources will be key. That will have to play out in its own way over the next few weeks as we go through the spending review, the police settlement and others.

I turn to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. She made three very important points. First, I think that the definition of domestic abuse needs to recognise coercive behaviour and the question of reproductive coercive behaviour. I hope I can reassure her that the current definition is designed to do that. We can discuss whether it does in practice, but that is what it is designed to do. Secondly, she mentioned very clearly the question of honour-based violence. I, and my honourable friends the Ministers Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, have heard loud and clear that there needs to be a robust framework on safeguards for victims. The Government are considering this again. Sometimes I have to stand at this Dispatch Box with a hint but nothing definitive, and I hope that the noble Baroness can understand where we are with that at the moment. She also mentioned domestic homicide. There is a real issue there. The Government are committed to looking at domestic homicide review processes to see whether we can improve them.

The Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised the definition of domestic abuse relating to age. Following the terrible case of Holly Newton, which was mentioned by other Members, our thoughts have to be with the family but, ultimately, we have to do something about that. Therefore, it is important that we look at how we record violent incidents and how the victims are supported, whether they are under 16 or over 16. The police must have information to protect victims and take action against the perpetrators. This is something that we can reflect on, and I would welcome contributions from Members on how we can best do that.

My noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. This is an issue on which my noble friend Lady Gale has pressed me previously, and I know she will again. The system of settlements under domestic abuse provisions is currently only for those who have an expectation of being able to settle here when they enter the UK. But our policy review is now looking at the very issues that she has raised. I hate to ask for patience on these matters because I know how important this is and how impatient my noble friend is, but if she can have some patience, we will review this as part of the policy review and look at those issues in due course. The UK ratified the Istanbul convention in 2022 and the convention’s monitors visited the UK in January this year. We look forward to receiving their report and then, I hope, the UK’s compliance with the review in due course.

Colleagues also mentioned the tragic murder of Sara Sharif. I am limited in what I can say, for the simple reason that a conviction has happened but the sentencing has not yet happened. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will understand that while we know who is guilty, we do not yet know what the penalty is and any statement from this Dispatch Box would be interpreted as interfering in that judicial process. I am in a difficult position. My noble friend Lady Hazarika and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, raised that issue. Post sentencing, the Government will reflect again on whether there are areas of required action. We need answers. An independent panel will look at those issues in due course. I hope that we can settle that for today, difficult though it is, and in due course reflect on the issues that are ahead of us.

I hope I have covered most of the points that colleagues have raised. To conclude, this Government have a clear agenda to build—

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I made three very important points on spiritual abuse, transnational abandonment and the higher domestic homicide rates among ethnic-minority women, which have not been addressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Baroness raising those issues again. Can I write to her on those important points? I noted in the steam of the debate all the points that were mentioned. I am trying to respond to as many as I can. I took from her contribution the need for funding, which I have noted. I will reflect on what she said and her subsequent intervention, and will respond in due course. The transnational issue, of individuals being abandoned in a different country, is extremely important. I do not have a policy solution in front of me, but I will take it back to discuss with my colleague, Jess Phillips. I hope that will assist the noble Baroness.

In conclusion, the Government have a very strong agenda which I hope will build on the all-party work and the work done by the previous Government. There is a need to set a target, which we have done, of halving the incidence of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We have a first five-year stab at that in the course of this Parliament. To do that, we have tried to look at how we can improve measures in control rooms, improve measures on perpetrators, improve support for victims, improve the understanding and speed of court cases, and look at how we can settle on resource to ensure that some implications of previous legislation can be implemented. We will be judged on that.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. A lot of good points have been made. As well as reflecting on the bits that I have responsibility for, I will make sure that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, reflect on the bits that they have responsibility for. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Members who have spoken. In slower time, taking the point that the noble Baroness has just made, I will look through Hansard over the next 24 hours. If there are points that I need to respond to further, I will do so.

King’s Speech

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the Ministers on their new roles and their maiden speeches today. I look forward to asking them many questions. I will focus my contribution on violence against black, Asian and minority-ethnic women. I declare my interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.

I welcome the Government’s bold pledge to halve violence against women and girls. However, to be successful they will need to tackle the radicalisation of boys into extreme misogyny by online male toxic influencers, which is a problem in every community. How will the Government tackle this? To be successful, they will also need tailored approaches to different communities according to their needs.

I welcome efforts to date on tackling FGM, forced marriage and honour-based violence, but when it comes to minority-ethnic communities I notice that there is a greater tendency to focus on abuses linked to cultural practices. What is actually killing women is domestic abuse, but that does not get the same attention in minority-ethnic communities. In fact, when it comes to domestic homicides, minority-ethnic women are overrepresented by 22%. So I urge the Government to hold a public consultation to uncover the contributing factors to this overrepresentation and come up with recommendations across government departments and services. I also urge the Government to think about a legal definition of spiritual abuse. I will be holding a round-table meeting in September with minority-ethnic groups and I urge the Government to send policy advisers to that meeting to listen to what women have to say.

I turn my attention to hate crime. I was disappointed not to see this in His Majesty’s Speech, given that hate crime has been going up for over a decade now. But I shall focus my comments more on Muslim women. Police data actually shows that the vast majority of perpetrators are white males, so I consider this a form of gender-based violence, yet this type of hate crime tends not to be included in violence against women and girls strategies. I urge the Government to consider putting it in.

The Labour manifesto talks about improving the way that Islamophobia is monitored. I welcome that, but what action will the Government take to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice? For example, will they engage with Muslim communities and groups around the country and engage with Muslim women? That is something that the previous Government did not do. Instead, from 2011 they focused on funding one project, Tell MAMA, which is now given £1 million a year even though Muslim communities do not have trust and confidence in that project any more. There are concerns over transparency, governance, how funding is being spent and the quality of the data.

I was so concerned that I asked the previous Government 31 questions, which were not answered. That caused me a lot of anxiety, and I hope that the new Government will answer those questions. In fact, recently, an academic, Dr Nafeez Ahmed, tried to write articles about my concerns. The project spent a lot of money hiring Mishcon de Reya, which has expensive lawyers, to try to block the articles. Thankfully, that was not successful. I think I am on to something and that we need to look into this very deeply and carefully. What are they hiding? Could it be the inflation-busting pay rise of the CEO? That went from £77,000 to £93,000, which is a 21% pay rise.

I urge the Government to review this expenditure of public funding, to talk to Muslim communities around the country and to set up alternative hate-crime reporting hubs within communities. I am more than happy to support the Government to engage with and to speak to affected communities, in particular Muslim women.

Family Reunion Visas: Gaza

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I might dispute the noble Lord’s premise there: I am not sure that I would characterise it as an occupying power. I reiterate what I said earlier: British nationals and those family members can obviously apply using normal routes.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister made an assessment on how many students from Gaza studying here in the UK cannot go back to their homes because their homes have been obliterated? What financial and other support has been provided to those students?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I really do not have those statistics at hand, but I shall see if they exist.

Female Domestic Homicides: Black, Asian and Ethnic-minority Overrepresentation

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Gohir]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether Black, Asian and minority ethnic women are overrepresented in female domestic homicides; and what steps they are taking to safeguard them.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interests in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, domestic homicide is a horrific crime that disproportionately impacts women. The Home Office homicide index shows that 22% of the 249 female victims recorded between March 2020 and March 2022 were from minority-ethnic groups. These groups were overrepresented in domestic homicide data when compared to the 2021 census. Preventing domestic homicide is a key government priority, and we have set out commitments to reduce it in the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, the Home Office funded a project in 2020 based in the vulnerability, knowledge and practice programme which confirmed that there is an overrepresentation of minority-ethnic women in domestic homicides rates—the rates may be higher because the police do not always record ethnicity data accurately. What follow-up has there been on that project? Will the Minister agree to holding a public consultation or an inquiry to uncover fully the contributing factors to safeguard black, Asian and minority-ethnic women and girls? Will he meet me to discuss that?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am short on the detail of that specific programme, but in March 2022, we published the cross-government Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan, which invested more than £230 million in tackling this crime between 2022 and 2025. This includes more than £140 million for supporting victims and £81 million for tackling perpetrators. As regards the domestic homicide review, work is under way to review, improve and update the statutory guidance on that review. The consultation on that is about to open, so if any Peers are interested and would like to get involved, please let me know and I will be happy to supply the details.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who expertly outlined why the amendment is needed.

I will not repeat all the points made, but this is an issue of dignity for a highly vulnerable group. I will highlight one or two things that have been said. There is no evidence to suggest that the current 72-hour time limit on their detentions resulted in lots of pregnant women making the crossing. The Government have previously conceded that the adults at risk policy would not adequately safeguard pregnant women, and, in response, the 72-hour limit was brought in. We have research from prior to the introduction of this time limit that highlighted the inadequate healthcare for detained pregnant women. It is hard to believe that any healthcare arrangements would therefore relieve the stress of detention and the damaging impact on both a pregnant woman and her unborn baby.

We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the number of medical organisations and people who are opposed to removing the 72-hour limit. I join with them by strongly supporting this amendment, and I urge noble Lords to do likewise.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have added my name, because this Government are compromising the safety of pregnant migrant women and their babies.

To date, the Minister has not provided evidence that the numbers will increase if women are not detained. I wrote to the Minister and last week he acknowledged that, since January, no pregnant migrant women have arrived in this country illegally. Evidence has also not been provided that housing a few handfuls of migrant women, who have probably arrived over several years, will provide a danger to our society. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I support the cross-party amendments in this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his engagement, which I have truly appreciated, but I regret to say that I have yet to hear an argument as to why this amendment should not be accepted.

This is a very narrow and focused amendment that simply maintains the current protection on the detention of pregnant women. There is a clear medical case, which is why it is supported by the royal colleges, medical professionals and over 140 groups representing women. It will not create loopholes. It will not incentivise pregnant women to make a dangerous crossing across the channel. It does not exempt women from the rest of the provisions of the Bill, such as removal. It will not create a pull factor, and there is really no way it can be exploited by the criminal gangs who arrange crossings. There cannot be false claims of pregnancy, as the time limit starts only once the Home Office is satisfied that a woman is pregnant.

Some have said that pregnant women are unlikely to be removed, given fitness to fly, but that is not the case, as NHS guidelines say that women can travel safely well into their pregnancy. That argument also misses the point, as this narrow amendment is not about removal; it is about detention. If it is the Government’s case that pregnant women may not be removed, it is even more important that this amendment be accepted, so that pregnant women are not detained for lengthy periods of time.

The amendment does not undermine the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment; I have been very careful to try to avoid those. It impacts just a small number of women, but it will have a big impact on those women’s health and futures.

My noble friend the Minister is sincere when he says that the Government do not wish to detain pregnant women for any longer than is strictly necessary. Sadly, however, before this protection was in place and in legislation, women were kept in detention for weeks and sometimes months. We should not return to that. This narrow amendment is designed to ensure that that does not happen and that no women can slip through the cracks. Even at this last minute, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment. If he does not, however, and the amendment is pressed, I will, with regret, vote against the Government and in support of the amendment.

Asylum: Channel Crossings

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

On 31 December, the Prime Minister pledged to clear the backlog of 92,601 initial asylum claims; that relates to asylum claims made before 28 June 2022. One way this will be achieved is via the streamlined asylum process, which is centred around accelerating the processing of manifestly well-founded asylum claims. From 23 February, legacy claims from nationals of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria and Yemen will normally be considered through the streamlined asylum process. That means that a positive decision can be taken on the information available, and the claimant will not be substantively interviewed. I reassure the noble Lord that this work has progressed in terms of the recruitment of further caseworkers, and we hope to have 2,500 further case- workers in place by September.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, of the numbers crossing the channel, how many are women and how many are pregnant women? I asked this question in writing during the debates on the Illegal Migration Bill; I got a response, but no clarity on numbers. Could they be shared today?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, I can provide a breakdown of those numbers, probably during tomorrow’s debate. As far as I am aware, there were no pregnant women.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has expertly outlined why these amendments are needed. My good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name in support of Amendments 68 and 70, and regrets she is not able to be here to give her support in person. I share her concern about the impact of detention on pregnant women in particular, impact which we know is considerable. Others will rightly draw attention to the impact on children, and the suggestion of the use of force against either group is unspeakable. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons advises that there

“is no safe way to use force against a pregnant woman, and to initiate it for the purpose of removal is to take an unacceptable risk”.

I turn now to Amendment 68, which is a preservation amendment. This simply asks that the Government maintain the status quo. In 2016, the Immigration Act introduced a 72-hour time limit on pregnant women’s detention, which saw the numbers detained drop from 99 in 2014 to just seven in 2021. It is alarming to think that we may see numbers rise, and the consequences are disturbing. According to research by Women for Refugee Women,

“women seeking asylum who are pregnant are an extremely vulnerable group. Many have experienced trauma such as rape, trafficking and torture, and have significant physical and mental health issues”.

I appeal to the Minister to consider also the well-being of the unborn child involved. The Royal College of Midwives has said:

“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.


Antenatal care and support provided to women who are detained has often fallen short of the care normally available to pregnant women.

Research by Medical Justice found that in Yarl’s Wood, women often missed antenatal appointments. Some had no ultrasound scans while detained, and women did not have direct access to a midwife and could not request visits. In recent years we have seen the devastating consequences of holding pregnant women in prisons. These facilities, including detention centres, are on the whole not set up to provide the necessary health and welfare oversight. This violates women’s dignity and puts lives at risk. The indefinite detention of pregnant migrant women, who are often extremely vulnerable and the victims of abuse and trafficking, is a very worrying and regressive move. The implication that force may be used against them, and against children, is beyond words. I hope wholeheartedly that the Committee supports these amendments and that His Majesty’s Government give them the consideration they so justly merit.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

I thank noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for putting forward Amendments 68 and 70, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 76A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. Let me address Amendments 68 and 76A first.

I made a strong case at Second Reading as to why pregnant women should not be detained. I followed this up with a letter to the Minister. In the letter, which I sent on 19 May, I acknowledged that the Minister has a difficult job in trying to tackle illegal migration but inquired about the following points. I asked about what the Minister had said in his opening comments at Second Reading. He said:

“More than 45,000 people came here by small boat last year. The overwhelming majority of arrivals were adult males under the age of 40.”—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1781.]


This suggests that there were only a small number of women. However, I asked for clarification to understand fully the numbers. If the number was indeed small, then the number of pregnant women would have been negligible. I therefore asked also for evidence of how many pregnant women had entered the UK illegally and whether there had been sharp rise in the figures. I asked this because if not detaining pregnant women was going to act as a magnet, we would have seen the sharp rise suggested by the Government. I chased up a response yesterday and was informed that a draft letter has been prepared and is going through final checks, and I will be receiving it soon. I wonder whether there could be a response today to my points.

It seems obvious that there are probably only a few pregnant migrant women coming to the UK every year, but of course I am happy to be corrected on that point. If the Government are trying to make a case that not detaining them would act as an incentive for more smugglers to bring pregnant women into the country or act as a magnet, that does not stack up. What assessment has been made to arrive at that conclusion?

Hate Crime

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Gohir]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the incidence of each of the five monitored strands of hate crime in respect of the sex of the (1) victims, and (2) perpetrators; and why annual hate crime data are not routinely disaggregated by sex when published.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, police-recorded hate crime data, published annually on GOV.UK by independent Home Office statisticians, are not routinely disaggregated by sex of victim or perpetrator. On 1 April, police forces started to identify and record any crimes of violence against the person, as well as sexual offences, that are deemed to be motivated by hostility towards the victim’s sex.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for his response. Will historical data be made available on the government website? Looking at the last 10 years of hate crime data, it has increased every single year. Between 2021 and 2022, it increased by 26%. What action are the Government taking to reduce hate crimes for all groups affected?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On the noble Baroness’s latter point, she is right: in the year ending March 2022, there was a 26% increase compared to the previous year. Although the latest data does indicate that increase, the most recent Crime Survey for England and Wales figures, which were published in 2020, indicate a downward trend in overall hate crime incidents over the past decade. It is felt that the biggest driver for the increase in police-reported crime is likely to be general improvements in the recording of the crime. The police are also better at identifying whether a crime is a hate crime, along with increased victim willingness to come forward. As regards the publication of the data that we are collecting as of 1 April, I cannot say for sure yet. It is for 2023/24. It is voluntary at the moment, but it will be part of the annual data requirement. The Home Office statisticians will make an independent judgment as to whether it is fit for publication or not.

Public Order Bill

Baroness Gohir Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I too am a protester. In fact, I attended a protest on Saturday. It was a March for Mummies, about rising childcare costs, which are now more than rent and mortgages. We went to march past Downing Street and ended up outside Parliament. We were loud and we were noisy.

My concern is that, because of its broad powers and broad language, the Bill would criminalise a wide range of behaviours. Depending on the whim of whoever is in power, its powers could be applied to protests such as the one on Saturday if they are regarded as “disruptive”—and who knows what could be regarded as disruptive in five, 10 or 20 years’ time? The Government may say that they would not use the powers for those protests; they would be used only for those using extreme tactics. But how do we know that that will happen? We have politicians who break the law, break the rules and think it is acceptable, so how can we trust them? If they are given too much power, I shudder to think what would happen.

If the intention of the Bill were that precise, the language would have been narrower and more focused. For example, it speaks about locking on to any land or object; that could curb protests outside billion-pound organisations, which have resources to deal with protesters using civil action. Why should the police act as security services outside businesses? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised this as well. Something that has been mentioned time and again today is that the police already have powers to deal with those situations. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, gave a whole list of examples of where this has been done successfully.

It feels to me as though this Government are using the disruptive tactics of a tiny minority of protesters to target and control dissent from the wider public; to stop them from calling out bad government policies. The law will be used by Governments to target people and causes with which they disagree.

One of the basic tenets of a democratic society is the right to protest. We must think about why people are protesting; it is because they are not being heard. Very different broad groups will be targeted by these powers; minority ethnic groups or women’s groups, for example. As women become poorer and their rights come under attack, including sex-based rights, we are likely to see more women marching. We have seen women demonised, lose their jobs or be attacked because they speak about their human rights. Who knows what will happen in the future? Depending on which politicians are in power, those protests could be regarded as disruptive. As we know, not all politicians or even political parties are on the side of women’s human rights.

I worry about search powers—suspicionless search powers—which we already know target minority ethnic groups disproportionately. That situation will get worse. I worry about how women will be targeted. For example, police officers may use such powers to sexually harass and target women protesters. Noble Lords may think that far-fetched, but we need only look at the number of police officers who have been involved in rape, sexual assault, misogyny and sexism to see that it is not unreasonable for me to suggest that. Some police officers may deliberately misuse these powers to humiliate women and then justify it using the law. Women would find it very difficult to challenge that. The Minister mentioned the code of conduct and bodycams at the beginning, but they would be useless in those situations.

I am also deeply concerned about the “unlimited fines” mentioned in the Bill. This means protesting will be for the privileged few who can afford high fines. Yet again, the Government are targeting the poor, making it harder for them to complain publicly about policies that affect them. I am troubled by the wide range of activities that could be criminalised because they have contributed to a protest regarded as disruptive. It could be selling something online that has been used to make placards. It could be transporting protesters to a location; transport companies and taxi drivers could be caught up in this. It could be donating online, or just being in the vicinity.

With such broad powers, what moral right do we have to criticise other countries and how they deal with their protests? We may think that we are not like them; we are different. That is why, in our context, this Bill is unacceptable. We will end up with prisons filled with protesters—or perhaps I should say “political prisoners”; after all, protesting is political. Do the Government think this will stop protesters protesting? I think it will probably have the opposite effect. When people are not heard and their right to protest is curbed, they will use more extreme tactics and protest more because they will feel that they have to fight harder to be heard.

Many people have mentioned the suffragettes, but I will mention them again. They locked on to the railings outside 10 Downing Street to be heard, and how we celebrate them now. We Baronesses would not be in this place were it not for the suffragettes.

I conclude by saying that, if this Bill goes ahead, it will stifle legitimate protest, and that is a sign of a failing democracy, not a thriving democracy. The proposed powers are not compatible with a free society.