Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

59: Clause 67, page 65, line 21, after “vehicle” insert “or pedicab”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include pedicabs within scope of the offence of causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 59 I will also speak to the other amendments in my name as part of this group. I will try to take as little time as possible, because I know that there is still much to get through this evening.

These amendments refer to pedicabs, which are also sometimes known as rickshaws. They are loud and sometimes garish, and they hang out at all the tourist hot spots here in London. I will not repeat all that I said in Committee, but let me remind your Lordships of the problem I am seeking to address.

Pedicabs are the only form of public transport in London that is completely unregulated. The vehicles and their drivers are not subject to any kind of checks, they do not need insurance, they can charge passengers whatever they want, and they are exempt from the vast majority of traffic violations. Pedicabs can ply for hire in direct competition with our heavily regulated black cabs on any street or place in Greater London. Knowing that they can act with impunity, the vast majority of them do.

Noble Lords heard me describe in Committee the evidence of careless driving and antisocial behaviour. One of the most unacceptable aspects of pedicabs is the huge disruption they cause through the extremely loud music that many of them play. This unacceptable situation has gone on for well over 20 years. Westminster City’s residents, business owners and tradespeople who have to navigate our congested streets to do an honest day’s or night’s work have had enough and want something done.

My modest amendments to this Bill do not go anywhere near far enough in addressing the unfairness of this situation, never mind limiting the damage and reputational risk of allowing these vehicles to continue unregulated on our roads. I tabled them in part to raise awareness of the problem. These amendments are the best I can do with the legislation in front of us.

I am very grateful for the positive response I received from noble Lords in Committee. I am especially grateful to the Government for their fulsome support, not for these amendments but for the much better solution, which I referred to in Committee, that is currently in the House of Commons. A Private Member’s Bill has been brought forward by Nickie Aiken, the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, which would give Transport for London the powers it needs to introduce a licensing and regulatory regime for pedicabs. It would not ban them outright, because there are one or two reputable businesses which provide this service and want to be properly licensed and regulated.

Before I say any more about why I have retabled my amendments and where we are now with the Private Member’s Bill, I should explain why legislation is needed. Although pedicabs can be covered by local authority licensing and regulatory regimes in the rest of England and Wales, case law has determined that, in London, these vehicles are stagecoaches rather than hackney carriages. Therefore, Transport for London needs to be given the necessary powers to introduce a proper licensing and regulatory regime.

I am pleased to say that Nickie Aiken’s Pedicabs (London) Bill started its Second Reading on Friday 19 November, which was after the Committee stage of this Bill. Getting that far is no mean feat, bearing in mind where she was on the Order Paper that day—she was fifth, and she managed to get her debate under way. She set out her case very powerfully, and the Minister responded, declaring the Government’s full backing for the Bill, which is brilliant news and vital if that Bill is to make it on to the statute book. Sadly, time ran out that day before it could complete its Second Reading. Nickie tried again, unsuccessfully, to complete it on 3 December. It is now scheduled again, for Friday 21 January.

Nickie is not giving up, and neither am I. There is still a real chance that she will get over that hurdle next month. If she does, and with the Government’s declared support, there is every reason to be positive that we will get this on to the statute book this Session—but time in this Session is starting to run out.

I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Vere, Lady Williams and Lord Sharpe, their officials and the Bill team for the time they have given to meeting me to discuss this matter over the last few weeks. Since Committee, I have explored a range of alternative amendments to this Bill, as stopgaps in case that Private Member’s Bill fails, but these are either deemed out of scope or are detrimental in some other way as to render them unacceptable.

I will not divide the House on these amendments tonight, as I know the Government do not support them; no doubt the Minister will explain why. I remind noble Lords that these amendments would bring pedicabs into scope of careless driving offences and prohibit loudspeakers, which they use to amplify music.

Even though Nickie and I have not given up on her Private Member’s Bill succeeding, I am worried not to lose the faith of the people of Westminster, the black cab drivers and businesspeople who pay their taxes, live by the law of the land and work hard to maintain the reputation of our capital city. Countless times over the years they have had their hopes raised and dashed that this will be sorted out. Indeed, this situation must feel like a real injustice when they face so much regulatory burden and so many hurdles, while the pedicab riders who flout the law without a care in the world do not. This sense of unfairness only gets worse, as yet more road restrictions in the capital are implemented, especially for our black cab drivers.

I am immensely grateful for the Government’s ongoing support of the Private Member’s Bill and all the effort everyone is making to get it over the line. We are not giving up on that; there is still everything to play for. Before I withdraw this amendment at the end of the debate, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what assurance can he give me that the Government will not allow this injustice to drift on if the worst happens and Nickie’s Bill does not pass in this Session? I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments, which are very interesting. I will speak to the amendments as opposed to the Private Member’s Bill, but I will have quite a few comments on that too.

I have nothing at all against pedicabs, though I do not like the noise and they get in the way sometimes—but then so do bicycles, although they do not make noises. My worry is, first of all, with the definition of a pedicab. As I read it, it would also include a tandem bicycle. Who would know whether my passenger on the back was paying me? I think one has to go into a bit more detail than that.

There are more and more pedicabs going around which are actually pulling freight. I am sure the noble Baroness would not want to stop them being an environmentally friendly form of freight. If the vehicle had two seats, and if the driver had a friend on the back and somebody said, “You’re paying for it”, he would come under this regulation. That is before we get into the question of electric assistance, which I think some pedicabs have. Frankly, some of them go very fast and I do not think it is particularly safe, but we have to make sure that the definition is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank again my noble friend Lady Stowell for her work on this issue. I know she feels passionately about the regulation of pedicabs, particularly in the capital. I also thank all noble Lord who took part in this brief debate.

In England outside of London, as my noble friend is aware, pedicabs can be regulated as hackney carriages—that is, as a taxi—so the local licensing authority can require the driver and the vehicle to be licensed. In London, which has separate taxi and private hire vehicle legislation, this is not the case, as my noble friend pointed out. This means that there are not many powers for Transport for London to regulate pedicabs.

The Government agree that there needs to be greater regulation of pedicabs in London. That is why they are fulsomely supporting the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by Nickie Aiken MP in the other place. I know my noble friend has also been a strong supporter of that Private Member’s Bill. The Government also strongly support that Bill as it would enable Transport for London to put in place a cohesive regulatory framework for the licensing of pedicabs in London. I share my noble friend’s disappointment that it has yet to pass its Second Reading, but, as she noted, that has been rescheduled for 21 January.

Should that Private Member’s Bill be unsuccessful, the Government remain committed to bringing forward the necessary legislation when parliamentary time allows. I assure noble Lords that we will take this commitment seriously. We explored whether the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill could be incorporated into this Bill, but regrettably, as they focus on regulation and licensing, they fall outside its scope.

Once again, I praise my noble friend’s commitment to resolving this issue, but although I note the spirit with which her amendments have been proposed, it is the Government’s view that amendments are not the right method for making these changes. The introduction of a licensing regime for pedicabs, as the Private Member’s Bill would introduce, is the appropriate way forward for this matter. The Government do not believe that a partial way forward would be an appropriate or effective way to deal with this.

On the subjects raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to go back to the previous group, my noble friend the Minister outlined the call for evidence. I suggest that that would be the appropriate place to raise those points, because they are very good ones. This is probably not the right time to get involved in a debate about what is and is not a tandem, however.

I hope my noble friend is somewhat reassured that the Government share her view and commitment on this. Although I cannot give her the categorical assurance she seeks, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his and the Government’s ongoing support for resolving this matter, and particularly for the Private Member’s Bill, which remains live in the other place.

I note that my noble friend said that amending this legislation is not the right way to address this issue. That point is very much in response to most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. What I acknowledged in bringing forward these amendments is that there is a well-established regulatory body here in London standing ready to introduce a licensing and regulatory regime that would properly cover pedicabs in a way that would target them and not catch the other vehicles that would not be intended to be included in any kind of regime. The concerns he has would be addressed by the way we want to make sure this matter is dealt with.

The point is that it is possible in the rest of England and Wales for local authorities to license and regulate pedicabs as and when they arrive in cities or different towns, as my noble friend the Minister has already said. It is only in London where we have this legal gap. There is nothing at the moment—apart from any kind of specific laws that get broken—which would cover any unacceptable activity. But it is so unfair because we currently have operators on the street who can quite legally ply for trade and compete with black cabs on an uneven playing field, and in doing so, they rip off tourists and give our capital city a bad name. None the less, I am sure there are a lot of pedicab operators who would provide a fantastic service that would operate alongside black cabs, Uber and everything else if we were able to bring in a professional regime and, at the same time, prevent them operating in a way which would be unacceptable to residents and businesspeople in our capital city.

This issue needs to be addressed, so let us all keep rooting for this Private Member’s Bill. I would be happy to speak to the noble Lord about any specific points he wants to raise about that Bill, in the hope that it is going to come here.

Finally, if I can use the collective noun of “officialdom”, there comes a point when we have to recognise that it is not good enough if the only thing we ever do is legislate in a way which increases the burdens on people, but we never find the time to introduce laws that tackle those who have no intention of ever operating within the law. That is what we need to do. However, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we have had some powerful speeches already and it is a real pleasure to hear them. This was supposed to be the worst bit of the Bill. It is a terrible Bill but this was meant to be the absolute pits. However, the Government have made things worse by bringing in the latest amendments, so this is not the worst bit any more; it is just the next worst bit.

I have signed about a dozen amendments in this group. I could have signed them all and definitely support them all. Many of them are good, and worth raising, but the only real way forward is to remove these clauses altogether. I hope that opposition parties can join together to do that on Report, because our civil liberties and human rights are far too important to be negated in this way.

Amendment 293 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, sets the scene perfectly because it stresses the importance of the right to protest in a free country. We always look down our noses at all these illiberal countries abroad who suppress their citizens—their human rights and liberty to protest—but this Government are trying to do exactly the same. Any restriction on the right to protest has to be really carefully considered, not rushed in with 18 pages of amendments at the last minute and without any proper discussion.

There is a balancing act between the rights of individuals and those of wider society. The balancing act already happens because there is a great number of restrictions on protest in this country. The police have many powers, which they use, and many tactics—some of which go too far, such as kettling. The Government want to ramp up these restrictions even more: being noisy or annoying could be banned. Some Peers could be banned because they are annoying. We could end up with the only protests, as has been said, being the ones that are so quiet and uneventful that they achieve absolutely nothing.

This is deep, dark politics. This is about a Conservative Government wanting to rewrite completely how we operate within society, as individuals against the state. I think they are planning, or hoping, to remain the dominant political party for generations to come. That is what could happen through these terrible amendments.

If you make protests impossible to perform legally, criminalise non-violent direct action, abolish or restrict the ability of citizens to challenge the Government in court through judicial reviews, turn people against lawyers, gerrymander the election boundaries and dish out cash in the way that looks best for Conservative MPs, that is deep, dark politics. Many of us here are not particularly political and perhaps do not see the dangers inherent in what you, the Government, are doing. It all seems like a calculated ploy to turn all the cards in favour of an unaccountable Government that cannot be challenged in the courts, at the ballot box or on the streets. We all have to unite against this and deleting these clauses from the Bill is the beginning of that fight.

I have a tiny quibble on the issue that noble Peers have mentioned about the survival of the planet. The chances are that the planet will survive. What we are doing in this climate crisis is destroying the little bit of ecosphere that supports human life, so that is what we have to think about. It is not about survival of the planet but about survival of people.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I may be able to tone down some of the hyperbole. Let’s go back to first principles on what this Bill is about. I think we are all united in this country in support of our right to protest. That is a very precious right that we all feel strongly about. Nobody wants to put that at risk and nobody is trying to put that at risk.

In a world which is becoming more divided, with people having very strong, trenchant positions in the views they adopt, we are trying to ensure that it is possible for people to express their views in a way which does not undermine some of the other social norms in our society which allow us to disagree but be united at the same time. Over the last few years, we have seen a new fashion of protest which is carried out in a way that is unacceptable to other people in its disruption; whether they agree with the matter in question or not is almost irrelevant. We need to try—I believe this is what the Government are trying to do through this Bill—to make it possible for protests to continue in a way which does not divide society further.

I do not support the amendments, but I agree with one point, made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We have to be very careful on the issue of noise. It is impossible for people to protest silently and I will look to the Government for reassurance on that matter when the Minister comes to respond.

Let’s not forget what we are trying to do here: allow people to disagree in a way which does not divide us further. I worry that some of these amendments will perpetuate a division which we do not want to see happen in this country.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I rise to support Amendments 294 and 298 because I believe that Clauses 55 and 56, which introduce noise triggers for public demonstrations and assemblies, are fundamentally undemocratic and will have a detrimental effect on free speech in England and Wales. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but I was unable to attend the House on that day.

I have always thought of the Conservative Party as supporters of free speech, so I am disappointed that this Government seek to take that right away through these clauses. I repeat the quote from Jules Carey that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, gave that this is

“an existential threat to the right to protest.”

Of course, these clauses are a response to the outrage at BLM, Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain protests which have been incredibly disruptive to the lives of thousands of people across the country and especially in London. But the blocking of highways was always illegal under the Highways Act and the existing triggers in the Public Order Act 1986 can be harnessed by the police to control the other protests. The House will debate the new draconian measures the Government plan to introduce later which, as was mentioned at the beginning of today’s Committee debate, seems to be a poor way to treat the House.

The introduction of noise as a criterion for the police limiting or stopping protests and assemblies seems to me an unnecessary and damaging extension of police powers. The factsheet for the Bill promises that the police will use the noise trigger only

“where it is deemed necessary and proportionate.”

But “proportionate” must be subjective as a threshold for the trigger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I did make the point that I was not wholly comfortable with what was being said about noise in the legislation, and I was looking to my noble friend the Minister for some comfort—but I do think there is a new fashion of protest, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also referred to, which is very different from that which we have seen before and is causing a huge amount of disruption, which people find unacceptable.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification, but I have to say to her that noise is absolutely fundamental to the issues that we are debating now. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, in relation to the other protests and the obstruction of highways et cetera, the powers exist already in the Public Order Act and in other places to deal with them. So the question now is whether we should have the new, very restrictive curtailments on the right to protest proposed in this Bill which are about noise and its impact, and that is what I am addressing.

Not only is it a terrible idea which will place the police in an impossible situation, but the Bill compounds their difficulty by failing to provide any definitive criteria by which the police can determine whether the level of noise or its impact on others is sufficient to trigger their powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised this issue. No decibel level is defined in the Bill; no definition of intensity of impact, which the police are supposed to take into account, is set. As a result, the police will be dragged into areas of heated political controversy on which they will have to make entirely subjective decisions—except in the cases where the Home Secretary will help them out by making her own entirely subjective decisions—deciding that one protest may go ahead in a certain way and a certain place but having to decide that another may not. Presumably the police’s decisions will be open to challenge by protesters on the one hand and those who wish to curtail protest on the other. It is hard to think of a better way to undermine trust in the impartiality of our police services.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has also mentioned, many noble Lords will have taken part in the protests outside South Africa House against the apartheid regime. It was the express intention of those protests to generate noise and, doubtless, the agents of the apartheid state were impacted, and they may well have genuinely felt serious unease as a consequence, but, as long as those protests remained peaceful, it was surely no business of the state to protect them from the impact of that noise or any serious sense of unease that it may have caused.

That is an example from the past—it would be interesting to know how the Minister thinks the powers would be applied in that case—but let me take one from the present. Currently, a fortnightly vigil for democracy and human rights is held outside the Zimbabwe embassy on the Strand. The vigil is not normally loud, but, on occasion, when the Zimbabwe Government are involved in particularly egregious violations of human or political rights, it can be noisy and, without doubt, it has an impact on people in the vicinity. People are understandably angry in such circumstances, particularly in circumstances where protesters have been gunned down in Zimbabwe, and the noise that the protesters here generate will certainly have an impact on and may cause serious unease to embassy staff. But again I ask: if the protest is peaceful and orderly, is there any reason to prevent it happening?

As evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighted, police will inevitably be faced with pressures from certain embassies to ban protests outside their premises on the grounds of noise or serious unease. Can the Minister expressly address this issue in her summing up? Do such embassy protests fall under the powers of this Bill? Could a senior officer, for example, direct protestors not to protest outside the Zimbabwe embassy if he was convinced of serious unease being caused to embassy staff? How would the police assess evidence of the threat of serious unease in court? I hope the Minister will not tell the House that she cannot envisage the police using such powers in these circumstances, because that would only highlight how this part of the Bill will entangle the police in decisions they simply should not have to make.

If those are some of the potential, but hopefully unintended, consequences of this part of the Bill, what of the intended consequences? We know that the public protest clauses and proposals contained in Part 3 and in the government amendments, which will be debated in a later group, are deliberately aimed at environmental protestors, whether Extinction Rebellion or Insulate Britain, because the Government have basically told us that they are. Many of the people involved in these protests are young people who are protesting against an existential threat to their futures. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a very powerful speech in this regard. What is the reaction of the Government to these tiresome people who have the temerity to demand a future for themselves and their children and who understandably will not be bought off by the long-term promises so casually given out by the Prime Minister and so nakedly betrayed by his failure to take the action now to realise them? To deal with them, the Government propose using these wholly disproportionate powers.

What do these people want? They want us to insulate Britain. It is hardly world revolution. Yet in the face of an unprecedented climate emergency, we cannot even do that. No wonder they are angry. No wonder they despair of politics as usual. Instead of consuming a lot of time and energy banning their protests, because they are noisy or might have some impact, perhaps it would be better to have an infrastructure Bill with a long-term programme to tackle the problem of our energy-leaking and climate-threatening buildings. At least that is a problem we know how to deal with and could if we had the will. Certainly, it would be a better use of time, because if the Government think that these measures to curtail protests on the spurious grounds of noise and impact and to jail more people for a longer time will stop these protests, they are sadly mistaken.

Those who face an existential threat do not just buckle under, no matter the level of restriction or curtailment of their rights. If you doubt that, look at a history book. Look at the civil rights movement which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned, or the suffragettes, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, highlighted. These people were protesting in the face of laws far more extreme than even this Government would contemplate. Bringing in unjust laws to deal with this situation does not stop protest. You deal with it by addressing the issues fairly. These measures will only further embitter the protests. Far from what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, hopes for, it will not bring about any greater sense of unity, and it will not only further embitter the protest but embroil the police in unending controversies which, as far as I understand, they have no desire to be dragged into. Also, they have been provided with no objective criteria on which they can adjudicate such controversies.

The amendments in this group will remove some of the most objectionable aspects of this attack on peaceful protests. I hope that the Minister gives serious consideration to the powerful arguments that have been made by noble Lords on all sides, but really this part should come out of the Bill completely.

I conclude by saying that I am very pleased to say that we are a long way from the situation in Zimbabwe, where a youth leader languishes in jail in appalling conditions for more than 200 days, charged with blowing a whistle at a protest, where the police have become so embroiled in political controversy that they are no longer trusted by the public at all, and where public safety and public order are consistently deployed as reasons to stifle the most modest of protests. But those who courageously struggle in such situations look to our democracy, with our traditions of free and raucous protest, as a beacon. We should remember that. Every time we take a step away from them, we dishearten democrats around the world and give succour to those who oppose them.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

292E: After Clause 170, insert the following new Clause—
“Crime scenes: religious rituals or prayer
In securing a crime scene where a person within that crime scene is severely injured, such that there is a strong likelihood that they might die, there is a presumption that the constable in charge will allow entry to the crime scene to a minister of religion in order to perform religious rituals or prayer associated with dying.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe expectations of police procedure.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, before I get to the amendment, I think I can speak for all of us in saying that our thoughts are with the Amess family this evening.

Noble Lords who were in the Chamber for the tributes to Sir David Amess after the horrific crime that led to his shocking death will recall that at the end of her contribution the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked a question. I will quote her directly:

“Could priests be allowed to attend a crime scene so that they can give the victim their last rites, especially when they are dying?”—[Official Report, 18/10/21; col. 26.]


She posed this question, because it was reported that Sir David’s local priest had been denied access by the police to attend him in person to administer the last rites. It should be stressed that the priest accepted the instructions of the police and said prayers beyond the perimeter of the crime scene. I am not going to rehearse the events of that tragic day. None of us were there. It is not for me or any of us to second-guess the police officers on duty. I believe that the police should have the discretion to make whatever operational decisions they judge to be right, depending on the situation they are dealing with at any given time.

However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and many others, I found the news that a local priest was not able to attend to a dying man surprising and, to my surprise, somewhat upsetting, especially because he was the victim of such an horrific crime. I do not believe that this is a matter for legislation. Others who participate in this debate might think differently, including those who have put their name to this amendment. But after the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I talked, we decided to table this probing amendment to explore whether the presumption could be that at a crime scene the police constable in charge would allow entry to a minister of religion to give the last rites or other prayers associated with dying.

Perhaps now is the moment to declare that I am not a Catholic, or, I have to say, particularly religious, but like most of us who are perhaps hatch, match and despatch types, agnostics or atheists, I respect and understand how important faith is to people who practise their religion and recognise that it can become important at times of grief and loss, irrespective of the extent of our convictions. Like most other people, I think it is right that the police and all public authorities respect all religious faith, but I do think it is reasonable to expect the main elements of the Christian faith to be understood or more familiar to the police than most religions, because while religious affiliation is in decline among today’s Britons, it is still safe to say that Christianity is the main religion in the UK. That complex picture of increasing diversity and a declining majority does not mean that we should not give the importance of Christianity a plug from time to time and should not take for granted that something such as a priest being given access to a dying man at the scene of a crime will happen just because we assume that the reason why it is important is widely known and understood.

Even though there is no evidence that this was anything other than an isolated incident, having learned that something so innocent yet important was prohibited, those of us who are public figures have a responsibility to say loud and clear that we would expect it to be possible unless there are good reasons otherwise, and that we do not want the myriad sensibilities which these days the police are required to take account of to be at the expense of timeless expectations, such as access of a religious minister to someone at their most desperate hour of need.

I am grateful to the Catholic Union, which has been in contact with me since I tabled this amendment. It has been at pains to emphasise that the Catholic Church is not looking for special treatment for priests; it believes it is important for all people of faith to have access to ministers of religion when they are sick or dying. I know that the Catholic Union and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference have requested a meeting with the Minister. Notwithstanding what my noble friend has already said at Oral Questions today—I was not in the Chamber for that, but I caught up with it and know that a working group has been set up off the back of a discussion between Cardinal Nichols and the Met Police Commissioner—I reinforce that request for a meeting, so that we can discuss the appropriate steps for the Government to communicate to the police the level of importance that Parliament has afforded this matter and to receive assurance from the police that they have understood our concerns.

If it is doable, my noble friend the Minister might also like to invite a ministerial colleague from the Department of Health and Social Care, as I understand that there is growing evidence of a lack of access for priests and ministers of all faiths to care homes, hospices and some hospitals. This too was raised during Oral Questions earlier today. I realise that this would have been difficult during Covid because of lockdown restrictions, but the fear is that social norms may have been permanently uprooted and replaced by new customs and practices which, while necessary during a pandemic, are here to stay because they are more convenient for the institutions concerned.

I know from my private conversations with her that my noble friend the Minister cares deeply about this topic. In her response, I hope she is able to tell the Committee what action the Government have taken to assure themselves that, in all possible circumstances, the police will give access to a local priest or religious minister. I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say. Meanwhile, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for allowing me to work with her on this, and to all noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for introducing this amendment. When I read about the terrible murder of Sir David Amess while he was attending his parliamentary surgery, I was very shocked and saddened. Later, I learned that his parish priest was denied entry by the police to the crime scene to administer the last rites. I was also shocked and surprised then. After the disgusting and tragic murder of Sarah Everard by a member of the police force, I hope they will show some contrition by understanding this sensitive amendment. We need kind, honest, well-trained police to undertake their vital work to keep everyone safe.

David Amess was an honourable, brave man. He will be remembered as an exemplary Member of Parliament. If someone else had been murdered instead of David, I feel that David would be bringing an amendment similar to this to Parliament.

The sacrament of the last rites, which is also known as extreme unction or anointing the sick, is for people who are gravely ill or close to death. It is the sacrament for the remission of sins, to strengthen and comfort the soul, and food for the journey. While not every Catholic will request the last rites to be administered by a priest, many do. It can be of utmost importance to some.

I would like to thank Alasdair Love from the Public Bills Office, who helped to put together this amendment. I am pleased that Cardinal Vincent Nichols and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Dame Cressida Dick, have agreed to establish a joint group to study these issues. I hope that training for police officers on this matter will be included. This gives some hope. I add that the coronavirus has made this sensitive and important matter even more complicated, but problems are for solving. I hope that providing the sacrament of healing to the dying who desire it will become more available. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and thank all who support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Covid has put aside many norms, including, as my noble friend said, chaplains in care homes and maybe in hospitals, although I understand that chaplains are available 24 hours a day in hospitals. I am more than happy to meet my noble friend and the Catholic Union ahead of the next stage and to request a Health Minister. However, I hope that, in light of the discussions between the archbishop and the Metropolitan Police, and having had this opportunity to debate this difficult issue, my noble friend would be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken today. First, in response to my noble friend’s last couple of points, of course I will withdraw this amendment, and I am grateful to her for agreeing to the meeting requested by the Catholic Union and for including in that meeting a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care. Having been requested, it is important that that meeting goes ahead and provides an opportunity for a discussion on these issues from that single perspective. As she has already said, it is very encouraging that Cardinal Vincent Nichols and Dame Cressida Dick have initiated this working group to look at the issues arising from the events of that tragic day.

The debate this evening has been remarkable. I have found it quite moving. I was very unsure about tabling this amendment, if I am honest. I hesitated quite a bit about it, and then after I had tabled it, even with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I kept thinking, “Oh God, is this the right thing to do?”, but I thought it was important that we had an opportunity to debate these matters. As I said earlier in my opening remarks, I genuinely felt that it was important for us to stand up and say, “This is important”, rather than just accept it as something that happened and move on.

The result of that seems to have been noble Lords expressing views and raising points that I had not even thought about and elevating the importance of this issue. In addition to what the Minister has already agreed to, it would be proper for her to give further thought to how we can explore its importance even more. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who suggested that the Government facilitate the dialogue between the various different religious faiths. As the right reverend Prelate, to whom I hope I did justice to at the beginning, said, this is not just about the Catholic faith but about how we address some of these bigger issues, which really do need to be considered. As a society, we have to make sure that the things that are really important to us as human beings and to our cohesiveness as communities are recognised and given the attention and weight that they deserve by those of us in positions of power to make these things happen.

Again, I am grateful to all noble Lords and I look forward to sitting down with the Minister and the representatives of the Catholic Union. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 292E withdrawn.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I very much agree with noble Lords who have said so much about the retail workers on whom we have depended so greatly and will continue to depend in the future and who face so many instances of assault and attack. The campaigns that this has generated show just how seriously we take this, but I have to ask, particularly in the light of Victoria Atkins’s commitment in the Commons, whether the Government have identified a serious gap in the law, filling which would alter the situation materially for the better, or whether the worst of the problem arises from inadequate police response to incidents. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, quoted figures for that. Perhaps there is an inadequate police presence in areas where this kind of attack is prevalent, or perhaps the inadequacy comes, in some cases, from the Crown Prosecution Service about cases that should be brought to court.

This kind of attack is affecting retail workers in a number of different situations. Some of it is drug related, with people desperately trying to get money to pay for their drugs and attacking shopworkers when they are found stealing goods from a shop. Some of it is alcohol related and alcohol enforcement related, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have pointed out, whereby shop workers have simply been trying to enforce the law. Where I live at the border with Scotland the issue is more complicated because the law is different on either side of the border.

Some of it is even hate crime of which ethnic-minority shop owners have been the victims. That is so awful when one thinks of the incredible contribution that, for example, Ugandan and Kenyan Asians have made in providing retail services at all hours of the day and night in all sorts of communities, including in some of the most difficult areas. Those shop owners deserve our support and protection, but we need to know how best to provide that.

One my concerns about the amendments and the approach taken so far, which is perhaps a tribute to the effective campaigning of retail workers and their organisations and representatives, is that a number of other groups of people who deal with and serve the public are also exposed. My mind turns to the staff of estate agents, for example—the Suzy Lamplugh case is a vivid reminder. It is not clear whether such staff are covered by the retail workers’ provision. They may be, but I am far from certain. I also think of transport staff, housing officers, local authority planning officers and even parking wardens. It is sometimes seen as some kind of joke to laugh at parking wardens and at how angry people get at them. Any kind of harassment or attack on people who are serving the public is no joke at all and requires the attention of government.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, however, that attention is not necessarily best served by simply putting in longer maximum prison sentences, thereby creating sentence inflation and generating far more expenditure on prison, which could perhaps be better spent on policing and community support of various kinds, including activities directed at young people in local communities who are drawn into violence. We need to look at what else we can do in terms of police response, CPS commitment and community support to support the staff who serve us.

If the Government have identified a significant gap in the law, a change to which would help those responsible for enforcement and protection, we would be interested to hear it. However, one way or another, we need to help those who are helping us.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, in some respects similarly to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I come to this debate with an open mind in terms of the specifics of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I very much align myself with him and others who have spoken in that I am appalled at the assaults, attacks and abuse of people on the receiving end who work in stores of all kinds.

However, I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says as regards whether the law currently provides for these kinds of attacks. One of the things that I found extremely concerning in the briefing provided by USDAW and others was the lack of police response when shop workers were on the receiving end of an attack. When they contacted the police, there was little or no reaction. That is really troubling.

The only thing I want to add to what has been said relates to something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also referred to the fact that we are asking shop workers in many respects to uphold the law for us. However, there is another aspect to the role of shop workers and shopkeepers that we do not mention often enough and is important. They are community leaders and people in whom we should encourage a sense of authority for themselves. I want people who are doing these jobs to feel that they are holding a position of power. They are responsible for a public place and when they are at work they are in charge. They deserve our respect for that. I see them much more than just as service providers; they are standard setters. In local communities, in particular in local convenience stores, they can make an enormous contribution to the health of a community and the way in which local people feel about themselves.

If the Government are inclined to go down this route of legislating in the way that has been proposed—and even if they are not—I encourage the Minister that there should be some effort in conjunction with legislation to promote the importance of retail workers, not just in the way they provide a service to us but in the way they are leaders of their communities and important to our maintaining the social norms and standards that are crucial to the health of our society as a whole.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to lead the Back-Bench contributions to the debate on this Bill. As we have already heard, this is very wide-ranging legislation. I will focus my remarks today on Part 3 and the measures about public order, which make it possible for the police to do their job, as people expect, when the methods used by protestors are unacceptable to the vast majority of law-abiding people. I know that some Peers will express concerns about these measures; we have already heard some concerns expressed by the Opposition Front Benches. There may be some legitimate arguments to be made about whether language should be in the Bill or in secondary legislation, and no doubt we will have those debates in detail when the time comes.

If we are to legislate properly, it is important that in giving the police new powers to oversee and manage the impact of protests, demonstrations or assemblies, we provide them and the courts the clarity they need to meet wider public expectations of them in how they do their work. Because this is such a sensitive issue, I believe we must be live to the risk of process and procedure not only undermining what the Government have a mandate to achieve but perpetuating a bigger problem, accidentally or otherwise—that is, legitimising some forms of protest or assembly which are perniciously undermining our society.

In the brief time I have, let me try to explain what I mean. I start by emphasising that this is not about the subject of protests; I am not interested in whether it is climate change, racial equality or anti-vaccines. This is about behaviour and conduct which is deeply troubling because, whether by accident or design, it is promoting division and dismantling our society: behaviour that appears to be based on a belief that if people are sympathetic to a cause they can—and indeed some believe they must—demonstrate by causing disruption and distress to other people, until everyone declares their support and submits too.

As I said in the debate on the gracious Speech, back in May, until the big disruptions in central London during 2019, I am pretty sure most people assumed that it was not possible for anyone in the name of any cause, however important, urgent or noble, to blockade main roads and major junctions and not be stopped from doing so. What dismayed me about those events that summer, including the way that the police initially reacted and some of the media reports, was that common consensus among law-abiding people was at risk of breaking down. In this context, I am talking about the common consensus of what is acceptable behaviour in public when it comes to how we protest and demonstrate in support of things we believe in or are against. It is this underlying risk that makes it even more important, I believe, that we get right our own approach to the way we do our work on this Bill.

Some noble Lords may have been present in the Chamber last week for a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is also speaking today, about standards in public life. During it, I raised the point that we see signs that the social norms which bond us together as a society are breaking down. Our responsibility as leaders is to promote common standards.

In a complex world where people are increasingly angry and distrustful, and asked to take on trust complex solutions, they need reassurance that decision-makers are motivated by a common purpose of upholding what is fair in a decent society. They, and any of us, can judge each other’s motives only through the actions that we can see on display.

My big concern if the House of Lords fails to support the principle of these measures, which clarify what is and is not acceptable when it comes to how people protest in public, especially when they have a legitimate right to disagree or question, is that we encourage more distrust within our society. There are some causes which, ultimately, should attract universal support, but that means we cannot allow them to be hijacked by people whose behaviours serve only to repel those whose confidence and support are very much needed for us all to thrive and meet the challenges of a modern world.

As regrettable as some noble Lords and indeed campaigners outside might find aspects of this legislation, it seeks to deliver the clarity that is needed to benefit us all. We in this House should not support methods of protest which serve to divide us; we need to promote that which unites us, even when we disagree.

Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this, and she is absolutely right in what she said. I know this will not be to her full satisfaction, but we are, through the Online Harms Bill, going to be addressing some of the issues that cause concern, such as user-generated pornography. I know that is not what she is referring to, but we are going some way towards addressing it.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, clearly we are all united in our condemnation of violence and aggression against women and girls, and we are also united in our view that perpetrators be pursued and prosecuted with vigour and the full force of the law. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that in the context of online pornography I hope to see more moves addressing the availability and access to that among children, which is incredibly concerning to all of us in the way in which it might influence the attitudes of young men and boys to women. In the context of such an important strategy, I want to raise very carefully a concern that is worth us being mindful of, and that is how we can avoid a mindset developing where all women are victims and all men are villains. Are the Government conscious of this, and if so, how are they reflecting that in this strategy and in the way that they intend to roll it out?

EU Nationals in the UK

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, the House was calling for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, before that stronger intervention and then I think it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am most grateful. Do the Government accept that there are about 3 million EU nationals living at present in the United Kingdom, but there are also 1.2 million British people living in the European Union? When present tensions have calmed down, why would either Brussels or London want to do anything to upset this mutually beneficial situation? Do the Government agree however, that if the EU were to get difficult with our nationals living there, it is we who hold the stronger hand if we retaliate, because so many more of them are living here?

Terrorism: Terminology

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

Did the noble and learned Baroness give way to the noble Lord? The House was calling for the noble and learned Baroness, but if she has given way she has given way.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I thank the noble Baroness. I had not given way; I just thought it was polite to sit down. I am the chairman of the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life. Across the country we have discovered the importance of talking to people with whom we do not agree. Will the Minister make sure that the Government talk to groups of whom they do not approve and who have very different views? Communication and dialogue are crucial in these matters.

Migration

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, on this occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, just pips the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who knows how generous I am to him on many occasions.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in the world today one in seven people is on the move? We have 7 billion members of the human race and 1 billion of them at any time this year are on the move. In those circumstances would anyone dare say that the problems of migration and movement can be tackled by a single country on its own?

Immigration: Public Services

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches, but I suggest that it be a Member who has not yet asked a question today.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, as an Iranian born citizen, I must say that not all of us are a drain on the economy. I remind the House that the National Health Service would not run if it were not for people from abroad with high qualifications who are willing to work in it and help the economy. It is important to recognise the contribution they make, because the caring services and the NHS would not function without it.