Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in what he has just said. I have heard two rumours—one, that the Government Chief Whip is urging people to keep their comments on the Bill today short. I wish to declare to the Government Chief Whip that that is not possible, bearing in mind the number and complexity of issues that we are supposed to debate today. The other rumour that I have heard is that, if the House is still debating at 2 am, only then will the debate be adjourned. If that is right, looking at the timetable, that means that the most contentious parts of the Bill—the new amendments, as the noble and learned Lord said, which have not even been considered by the House of Commons—will be debated either side of midnight. That is no way for this House to be treated.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I have not heard the rumour about keeping comments short. We are about to begin the 11th day in Committee of this Bill. In total, this House has sat for 60 hours in Committee, including starting early and going beyond 10 pm, as well as allowing three extra days. By the time when we finish today—and we intend to do so—we will have considered and debated more than 450 amendments.

As for the new clauses, they have been agreed with the usual channels and with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I would say to noble Lords who have spoken that we intend to finish Committee today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I support the noble Lords who have spoken. Quite honestly, this is no way to treat the House of Lords. Especially as we get older, we do not want to stay up until 2 am—and, quite honestly, this Bill should have been four Bills. I think that everybody on the Government Benches knows that. Therefore, the 60 hours of debate and 400 amendments is not that that unusual. Bringing in these amendments at the last minute is really scandalous, and very typical of an arrogant attitude towards your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I no more want to stay until two in the morning than does the noble Baroness. We will get to the public order new measures later on. I understand that the Liberal Democrats wish to vote against them, and ultimately I shall introduce them but will withdraw them, so there will be another occasion on Report to discuss them as well.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

To pick up on that last remark, the Government are going to withdraw the new amendments—so how will they regard Report? Will it be treated like a Committee stage?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Report will not be treated like a Committee stage, but I have no intention of moving amendments that this Committee intends to vote against, so I shall withdraw them.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Can I confirm, though, that we will be going on until such time as we conclude the Committee stage—that is, as far as today and the early hours of the morning are concerned? So if it takes until 2 am to get through this list, we will be here until 2 am, and if it takes till 4 am, we will be here till 4 am. What the Minister said was a statement of hope that we would finish tonight; it is not an undertaking from the Government that we will not go on beyond midnight, even. Can I be clear on that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We will finish Committee today—and, yes, a statement of hope is certainly what it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornhill has spoken comprehensively on these amendments, so I can be brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for introducing the amendment. She rightly points to the failure of the current legislation to adequately deal with this problem on the basis of the facts that she presented. Something clearly needs to be done to ensure that the police play their part. If South Yorkshire Police can do it, why cannot every force? We support this amendment.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his Amendment 292J. Noble Lords may have seen the ITV “News at Ten” last night on how young people are increasingly being exploited, particularly by drug dealers. That is in addition to a 6% increase in reported domestic violence during lockdown, when many more children would have become vulnerable. There is too much emphasis on the criminal justice system as a way to deal with these vulnerable young people, rather than there being a statutory duty on local authorities, the NHS and the police, as this amendment suggests. We support it.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, introduced Amendments 320 and 328. I remember being told as a young constable about the antiquated legislation—the Vagrancy Act 1824—introduced to deal with soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars. That was in 1976—not the Napoleonic wars, when I was a young constable; they were a bit earlier. People should not be criminalised simply for begging and sleeping rough. There is adequate alternative legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour and the Vagrancy Act is now redundant. As the explanatory note says, these amendments would require police officers

“to balance protection of the community with sensitivity to the problems that cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough and ensure that general public order enforcement powers should not in general be used in relation to people sleeping rough, and should be used in relation to people begging only where no other approach is reasonably available.”

On that basis, we support these amendments as well.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I have great sympathy with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to firmly stamp out the illegal eviction of tenants. This distressing activity has no place in our society and it is an unacceptable practice carried out by rogue landlords, perpetrated on tenants.

I totally agree that the police and local authorities need to work together to tackle that. Many noble Lords have spoken in today’s Committee who have experience of this type of multiagency working. It is essential in terms of supporting the vulnerable, and there are many examples of that. I always talk about the troubled families programme, which is one such intervention but it is such an important one because some people have multiple problems. It is a fantastic way for agencies to sort them out together. Local authorities and the police also have mechanisms in place to work collaboratively to tackle criminal landlords. The police are also able to establish protocols for information sharing, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, spoke about. We expect them to use those protocols to their full extent to aid investigations into illegal evictions and enforce the law.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has examples that suggest a lack of effective co-operation, I should be very happy to pass them on to my colleagues in DLUHC. As has been pointed out, there are lots of good examples of how interventions have worked well, particularly in Westminster. If there is an issue, the solution here is not more legislation. The existing powers we have are sufficient. But I accept that it is incumbent on the police and local authorities to work collaboratively to tackle crime in their areas, including on illegal eviction investigations. As regards the point about police saying that issues are a civil matter, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned, the police have powers of arrest and it is important that those powers are used appropriately, including on illegal eviction investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness accept that there is a problem with that situation, which happens often at the crisis level and not the early intervention level? It also excludes any organisation, such as a voluntary sector agency, that may be working with a child if they are not one of the three official statutory agencies.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I was trying to say was that legislation is in place but, if it is not always followed in practice, it would be very helpful to know about it. However, I accept the final point that the noble Baroness makes.

I turn to the issues that the noble Lord raises in his amendment. If you consider first children impacted by domestic abuse, it is totally unacceptable that some children have to witness abuse carried out in their home by those whom they should trust the most. This Government have demonstrated their absolute resolve to tackle domestic abuse and its impact on children, both in legislation earlier this year—the Domestic Abuse Act—and through the upcoming domestic abuse strategy.

As part of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, children are recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. This is an important step which will help ensure that locally commissioned services continue to consider and address the needs of children. Further, the Act created the role of the domestic abuse commissioner in statute to provide public leadership on domestic abuse issues and to oversee and monitor the provision of services for victims, including children. The provisions of the Act came into force on 1 November.

It is really important that young victims receive the right support at the right time—which was precisely the wording that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, used—to help them cope and recover and to mitigate the long-term impact of their experiences. We are determined to continue to improve the standard of support for victims of crime. This year the Government will provide £150 million to victim support services, which includes an extra £51 million to increase support for rape and domestic abuse victims. That includes support for children and young people.

Through the children affected by domestic abuse fund we have provided £3 million this year for specialist services for children who have been affected by domestic abuse. This funding is enabling a range of therapeutic interventions for children, such as one-to-one or group support. In addition, the Home Office is this year providing £169,000-worth of funding to Operation Encompass, a scheme which connects the police to schools through a specialist support helpline for teachers concerned about children experiencing domestic abuse. The helpline was established during the Covid-19 pandemic, as noble Lords might recall, and we are continuing to fund it this year.

Turning to the matter of child criminal exploitation, the Government are investing in specialist support for under-25s and their families who are affected by county lines exploitation in the three largest exporting force areas—London, the West Midlands and Merseyside. The Government are also funding the Children’s Society’s Prevention Programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and modern-day slavery and human trafficking on a regional and national basis. This has included supporting the #LookCloser public awareness campaign, which focuses on increasing awareness and encouraging reporting of the signs and indicators of child exploitation. We also fund Missing People’s SafeCall service, which is a national confidential helpline for young people, families and carers who are concerned about county lines exploitation.

Through cross-government efforts we are working to identify areas of learning with regard to child criminal exploitation and improving our response to it. The Home Office and the Department for Education are currently testing the effectiveness of how multi-agency safeguarding partnerships respond to serious violence and county lines through a series of deep dives. We have recently received the findings from those reviews and are considering the best way to share the learning and practice with local areas.

In the wider landscape, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government will be consulting on a victims’ Bill. As part of that consultation, we will seek views on the provision of community-based support services for victims, including children. The consultation will carefully look at how local bodies collaborate to support victims and will consider the evidence to determine where legislation could be used more effectively. Therefore, although I am very sympathetic to the aims of the noble Lord’s amendment, I hope that he is sufficiently reassured by the extensive ongoing efforts to tackle these two issues, the existing arrangements in place and, indeed, our plans to consider the duty to collaborate further as part of the victims’ Bill.

Finally, in relation to Amendments 320 and 328, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the time has come—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before we get on to the Vagrancy Act and the other amendments, she talked about treating children as victims of domestic violence if they witness it, and about child criminal exploitation. There is a third group: children who witness violence, particularly in the home, and suffer adverse childhood experiences as a result which lead them into committing crime. I remember attending a juvenile detention facility in Scotland, where almost every child in custody had experienced violence in the home as a cause. The Minister talked about two issues, but there is this third issue of adverse childhood experiences leading to offending behaviour, which I believe the noble Lord’s amendment addresses in a way that the Minister has not.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My intention was not to leave out that issue; we could have a whole debate on the effect of childhood abuse, trauma and witnessing violence on the future prospects of a person when they become an adult and their increased likelihood of going on to abuse, but my intention was not to dismiss it. I apologise that I did not mention it, but the intention certainly was not to dismiss it at all.

Finally, I move to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. As I said, the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act—some of the language that was used is so antiquated that it would perhaps be alien to some of this generation. I agree that nobody should be criminalised just because they have nowhere to live. Back in 2018, we committed to review the legislation following mixed views among stakeholders regarding the continued relevance of the Act, given that it is, as noble Lords have said, nearly 200 years old. I am sure that noble Lords can understand that announcing the outcome of this review has been delayed by several factors. One noble Lord mentioned the dedicated response for vulnerable individuals who are sleeping rough during the pandemic, which was outstanding.

It has been imperative to understand the full picture of how and why the Vagrancy Act is used, and what impact any change to or repeal of the Act will have. Rough sleeping and begging are complex issues, and the Act continues to be used. The review considered a range of factors and at its heart has been the experiences and perceptions of relevant stakeholders, including local authorities and the police. The Act continues to be used to tackle begging, and, if repealed, a legislative gap would be left that might impact on the police’s ability to respond to it.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is not an alternative in this context. The powers in the Act are available to police and local authorities to tackle specific forms of behaviour that meet the legal tests in that legislation—for example, behaviour that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a victim or community. As I have said, begging is complex, but plainly it does not always come with these forms of accompanying behaviours.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I did not speak earlier to save the Committee’s time and please the Government Whips, but I now have two short questions in relation to the Minister’s answer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I was just about to say that I have not finished my answer.

Begging is clearly complex but plainly does not always come with these forms of accompanying behaviours. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences in repealing the Act. We carefully consider the operational impact for the police, who play a very important role in local partnership approaches to reducing rough sleeping, as well as ensuring community safety and tackling crime. Although the police will often not be best placed to provide support to vulnerable individuals, enforcement can form part of moving people away from the streets when working closely with other agencies and coupled with a meaningful offer of support. It is important that the police have effective tools to respond to behaviour that can impact negatively on communities.

The anti-social behaviour powers to which my noble friend Lord Sandhurst referred do not have the immediacy of a criminal offence. We need to consider further whether there is a continued place for criminal law in tackling begging.

As I have previously stated, the Government do not wholeheartedly agree that the Vagrancy Act is outdated and inappropriate—I am sorry; we do agree. I am quite tired today. The Government agree that the Vagrancy Act is outdated and inappropriate for modern-day society. However, as I have outlined, it needs to be considered alongside consideration of what more modern replacement legislation should look like.

To that end, in relation to subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, I share noble Lords’ ambition to make sure that those who are rough sleeping are supported appropriately. We know that not all individuals who are rough sleeping beg and that not all individuals who beg are rough sleeping. There is a range of circumstances in which an individual may beg, including forced begging; a perpetual cycle of begging can have a detrimental impact on the health of an individual, as well as impeding engagement with support. We also know that some people engage in begging with various motives. Where an individual is truly destitute, it is paramount that a multiagency approach is wrapped around them to provide the necessary support, but we must recognise that this does not always happen. We need to ensure that legislation creates the right environment in which to deliver effective services and engage with vulnerable people constructively.

In relation to subsection (5), I am not convinced that additional guidance is needed on the use of anti-social behaviour legislation beyond existing statutory guidance. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 was introduced to provide simple and effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, and existing statutory guidance makes it clear that those powers are not there to target vulnerable people based solely on the fact that they are homeless or begging without there being accompanying behaviour that meets specific legal tests. Therefore, we believe that the position that subsections (3) to (7) of the proposed new clause seek to specify are an already-established position reflected in statutory guidance.

I accept that these are relative points of detail about the drafting of the noble Lord’s amendment. The central point is that the Government are committed to completing their review of the Vagrancy Act as soon as practicable. This helpful and timely debate will inform that process. I would like to extend an offer on behalf of Eddie Hughes, the Minister for Rough Sleeping, to meet the noble Lord, Lord Best, and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate ahead of the next stage.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Was the former Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, speaking on behalf of the Government when he said that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

When I voiced my support for something needing to be done about the Vagrancy Act, there was a general acknowledgement that something needs to be done about it. I extend the invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Best—and, indeed, to my noble friend as well if he so wishes—because it would be an important discussion ahead of the next stage. What I was trying to say in my rather long-winded explanation is that there are some complex things in the Vagrancy Act that need to be unpicked and understood, with consideration of the legislation on the back of that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I hope that this is an appropriate time for me to ask the Minister two questions in relation to her answer on this group.

First, in contrast with the Minister’s answer to the subsequent amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, the answer to Amendment 292H in the name of my noble friend Lady Blake seemed to be that there are adequate powers for local authorities and the police to work together to protect people from unlawful eviction. However, there is obviously a difference between powers and duties. The intention behind this neat and compelling amendment is to do what the Government have tried to do in other aspects of this draft legislation: create a duty for people who already have powers to prioritise a problem and work together. Why not prioritise protection from eviction in the way that other types of crime have been prioritised, with duties and not just powers, in other parts of the Bill?

Secondly, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer on vagrancy. I do not understand why, if begging is not causing harassment to people, it is a crime at all. The Minister talked about two sides of the begging problem: it is bad for the person who has to do it and potentially bad for the people who experience it. If it is bad for the people who experience it, there are, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, set out, adequate criminal laws, whether in anti-social behaviour or in other legislation, that cover unwanted harassment. If it is just about protecting people from unhealthy behaviours, we do not do that by criminalising people for being desperate and poor. When she meets her noble friends to discuss this amendment, will the Minister look at whether this review cannot be speeded up in time for Report? The Government seem able to move very quickly when it comes to adding extra powers to suppress protests, but it takes hundreds of years to repeal the Vagrancy Act.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am sure that, when my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Best, meet Minister Hughes, they will cover some of the points made by the noble Baroness.

I do not think that this is about an acknowledgement that there are adequate powers; it is about the application of those powers. As I said to the noble Baroness, if there are deficiencies in collaboration at the local level, it would be helpful if they were brought to my attention.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I did not want to interrupt or contribute to this debate because there have been many eloquent speeches, but I want to ask the Minister a granular question. This is going to turn into a shaggy dog story in which everybody agrees that this 200 year-old legislation is out of date unless somebody sits down and does something serious about it with the intention of bringing the discussion to an end. As a question of fact, has parliamentary counsel ever been instructed to produce, or try to produce, legislation to replace the Vagrancy Act? If not, why not? If so, can we know something about the result?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for trying to wrap the discussion up in that one important question. I will take it away. When my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Best, speak to Eddie Hughes, the Minister, we will see what progress has been made at that stage. But at this stage, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting. We have had an hour and 19 minutes on this, but the answer that the Minister gave on the problems with Amendment 320, to which I have put my name, were difficult to follow. She made the point that begging or sleeping rough does not in itself amount to action causing alarm or distress in the absence of other factors under the 2014 Act, with which I agree and which the drafters of Amendment 320 explicitly reflect in subsection (3). I am simply unable to understand her reasons for not accepting Amendment 320.

This is important. It is not possible to say, “Well, here are some incomprehensible reasons that nobody in the Chamber understands, therefore we need the completion of a review.” I did not follow whether the review is part of the way through, whether it is finished or whether there is an expected date for its conclusion. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, what is wrong with Amendment 320 if it precisely reflects what she said? Secondly, where has the review got to? When did it start and when will it finish?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As for what is wrong with Amendment 320, I explicitly said to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the Government agree that the time has come to consider the Vagrancy Act. There is an opportunity to speak to the appropriate Minister before Report to answer some of the questions that have been asked this afternoon. I do not know the answer to the second question, but I will write.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the contributions that we have heard this afternoon. They have been incredibly thoughtful and based on evidence. On my Amendment 292H, we have heard many examples supporting the words that I used: there is evidence out there of what works, in the same way that there is evidence of what does not work. This is a real opportunity to get to grips with this issue for the sake of the victims of eviction and their families. I assure the Minister that everyone who has access to evidence will be extremely happy to supply it, with the expectation that it will be considered as we make further progress with this Bill. This is a real opportunity to get things right.

I thought that I was going back a long way, to 1997, not back 200 years, but it clearly is not good enough that, where there are powers, they are not being used. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti put it well: there must be an express duty to focus minds. It is not enough for us to say that in certain parts of the country this is being done. I can attest from my time as leader of Leeds City Council that there was incredible progress in this area and a real expectation that everyone would come to the table. Not sharing data was never an excuse. It was expected and supported by all the partners. It can be done everywhere but it is not being done everywhere. The resources are not there within the police or local authorities—they are diminishing—to ensure that enforcement is seen through. We are talking about innocent victims who suffer from the lack of enforcement. I made the point that all we are asking for is a simple change, through the amendment, that would bring to an end so much misery for people that does not need to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I will be very brief as the case for this amendment has been so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and other noble Lords who have spoken. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who unfortunately cannot be in her place tonight, and to the other noble Lords who are signatories to the amendment, for their tireless work on this issue. In that context, I also pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, who cannot be in the Committee today, for her dedication and years of leadership on this issue.

I know the Minister is also passionate about this issue, but for years the House has found itself returning to this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, and each time the answer from the Government is largely that the current system is adequate although improvements are needed in how it is delivered. Yet each time we come back to it, more women have been killed and more lives devastated. This amendment has our wholehearted support, and I hope we can now look forward to a clear and encouraging response from the Government.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for setting out this amendment calling for a strategy on stalking. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, this can have a devastating impact on the victims that are pursued. I actually have much higher figures than those that noble Lords talked about today: an estimated 1.5 million people were victims of stalking in the last year. I assure noble Lords that this Government are utterly committed to protecting and supporting victims of stalking, as some of our work in the last few years demonstrates. We will do everything that we can to ensure that perpetrators are stopped at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

“It is a Bill that destroys the fine British tradition of protecting the right to protest … Our laws of protest have always been a balance, and the way this proposed law disturbs it is wrong.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/21; col. 697.]

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it has been rather a lengthy debate, but rightly so. I accept that the provisions in Part 3 of the Bill raise important questions about the balance of rights in our vibrant democracy, as my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lord Goschen and the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Walney, so eloquently outlined. This Government stand by the right to freedom of expression and assembly; no democracy can survive without them. However, these are necessarily qualified rights and must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others. That point was well put by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division just last week when sentencing the protesters who had breached the M25 injunction. She said:

“In a democratic society which recognises the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, protests causing some degree of inconvenience are to be expected and, up to a point, tolerated. But the words ‘up to a point’ are important. Ordinary members of the public have rights too”.


The provisions in Part 3 of the Bill are about where to draw that line—to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and indeed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. We believe that, in the light of the experience in recent years with protest groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and others, the law governing the policing of protests—which is over 35 years old—needs to be updated.

Again, just last week, we heard from the Metropolitan Police the cost of policing the Extinction Rebellion protests in August and September: as well as £4.5 million in overtime costs, the protests required as many as 2,000 police officers to be assigned to police Extinction Rebellion events on any given day. Some 4,000 rest days were cancelled overall. This means 2,000 officers being taken away from protecting local communities—as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out. Of course, there were also costs and significant inconvenience to members of the public and local businesses—and this was on top of the £37 million cost of policing the 2019 protests by Extinction Rebellion. Some costs and disruption are an inevitable part of peaceful protests but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, recognised with his Amendment 292Q, there is a line to be drawn.

Nobody could fail to empathise with people trying to get to work or to get their children to school or their loved ones to hospital who were obstructed, not just—as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said—for a small amount of time but sometimes for hours on end. There were utterly heartbreaking stories of people who were not able to visit people who were dying in hospital. Those protesters are not winning public support in this; the public are pretty disgusted. The working public want to go to work. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, police resources are diverted from other parts of Greater London when the protests take place in London. I note that not one Member of the Committee who opposes what the Government are doing mentioned these protests or their effect on the working public.

That brings me to Amendment 293 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I reiterate here that this Government fully support the right to peaceful protest. This amendment aims to enshrine that right in legislation. As the Committee will be aware, the Human Rights Act 1998 writes the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, including those rights in Articles 10 and 11. Under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, it is already unlawful for public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention rights. That being the case, while I share the noble Lord’s belief in the importance of the freedoms of expression and assembly, I do not think that this new clause is necessary.

Amendments 294, 295, 299, 300, 303, 305 and 306 would remove the ability of the police to place conditions on processions and assemblies where the noise they generate risks causing serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or significant impact to those in the vicinity of a protest. The threshold at which the police will be able to impose these conditions is very high, and the vast majority of protests will be able to continue making noise as they currently do. These powers can be used only on unjustifiably noisy protests.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify that the police will be able to place conditions only on the basis of the level of noise which is generated from a protest. This means that the police will not be able to place conditions on a protest if the content of what is being said or chanted causes anyone unease, alarm or distress. Protests by their nature highlight often very controversial and difficult issues in society, and we have no intention of preventing this. In making use of this power, the police will have to consider the intensity and duration of the noise generated, the number of people and organisations affected, and the rights of the protestors involved, to respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on the embassy protest. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, the police make these judgment calls every day.

I remind the Committee that the police are restrained in their use of conditions on protests, and this will not change. In his evidence to the JCHR, the NPCC public order lead, Chief Constable Harrington, said that there were over 2,500 protests between 21 January and 21 April 2021, and that where they have records, conditions had been imposed no more than a dozen times. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, the police have been acting proportionately.

Moving now to Amendments 297 and 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I am grateful to him for pointing out that these are probing amendments to understand the meaning of the term “unease”. Should the noise from a protest risk causing persons in the vicinity “serious unease”, the police may place conditions on the protest to prevent that harm. As I have indicated, when setting conditions, the police will be required to consider the likely number of people impacted by the noise, the likely duration and the intensity of the impact on those people. The police will also be required to act compatibly with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly of those generating the noise.

The word will take its natural meaning and it will ultimately be for the courts to interpret. Removing “unease” would raise the threshold at which conditions can be placed on the basis of noise. The police will be able to do so only where there is a risk of intimidation, harassment, serious alarm or serious distress. That would leave a gap where protesters could continue to cause harm to those in their vicinity through the level of noise they generate.

Amendments 296 and 301 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would require the police to obtain a High Court order before they can impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. This would be a significant departure from the framework in the 1986 Act. As the noble Lord will know, the nature of protests can change rapidly. It is vital that the police are able to respond swiftly to developments, and I fear that requiring them to seek permission from the High Court to place conditions does not recognise the fast-moving dynamics of policing a protest.

Public order commanders receive extensive training and guidance on the safe management of protests. Through the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice, their training and their continuous professional development, the police are continuously improving their ability to strike the correct balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of others.

Amendment 302 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would remove the ability for the police to place any necessary condition on an assembly, as they can currently do for processions. I have already explained the fluid nature of protest, and I re-emphasise the need for the ability to place conditions on assemblies and processions to be aligned. While giving evidence to the JCHR, Chief Constable Harrington detailed that it is not always evident when a procession becomes an assembly, or indeed vice versa, which makes the imposition of conditions for complex protest scenarios extremely challenging. He also stated that the limitations on what conditions can be placed on assemblies are not suitable for some of the assemblies they have had to police in the past. Ensuring that the range of conditions which can be placed on assemblies matches those currently available for processions would resolve both these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendments tabled here and the comments by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

I want to say a little more on the next group of amendments, so I will be quite specific with respect to this group. The example is used of the meaning of “serious disruption” and defining that in the Bill, but this is a problem right the way through Part 3. A number of terms are left either to future regulations or to the discretion of the police.

I will quote not the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because I want to point out to the Committee the Government’s response, which points to a very real problem as we discuss the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights says:

“Using multiple terms that are open to wide interpretation, such as ‘intensity’ and ‘serious unease’”—


okay, it does not say “serious disruption”—

“leaves an excessive degree of judgment in the hands of a police officer. This is likely to prove challenging to the police, who already have significant responsibility for ensuring that demonstrations are lawful and safe. It will also give rise to uncertainty for those organising and participating in demonstrations and fails to provide convincing safeguards against arbitrary or discriminatory use of these powers.”

Surely that is why the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the others who have spoken are trying to give some clarity—I think that was the word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, used—to the legislation, so that the police and others know exactly what the legislation says they can or cannot do. More importantly, this Parliament is legislating for what it thinks is appropriate.

I have to say to the Minister—I do not know whether it is the noble Baroness or the noble Lord responding—that I was very disappointed in the response from the Government last month, before this Committee has discussed and thought about these amendments and listened to the arguments. Bear in mind that the Joint Committee on Human Rights referred to

“multiple terms that are open to wide interpretation”,

so, whatever anybody’s view, there are numerous phrases that people are concerned about. The Government’s response before this Committee met today was: “We reject this entirely.” That is the first sentence of the Government’s response.

Before the debate has happened and any points have been made on amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the Government have rejected it all. What is the point of debates, discussions, arguments, clashes of views and opinions and well-meant and well-intentioned differences if, before we have even discussed it, the Government do not believe that using multiple terms presents a problem and are rejecting that view? It is not a case of “we will consider this”.

I have been a Minister and the normal ministerial response is, “We’re considering this. Some good points have been made and we need to consider how this is best reflected as we take this forward”. You would certainly have said that before a debate or discussion. This is the Government’s own response to the JCHR report that says that using multiple terms is open to wide interpretation.

The concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is that “serious disruption” should be in the Bill. The Government have already rejected it. There is no listening to the debate: “We reject this entirely.” Those are the first four words—unbelievable. I will not say any more than that, because this speaks for itself, but I would like to know from the noble Baroness the Minister, if she is replying, what the point is of us debating these amendments, even if the Government disagree. There is well-put, well-intentioned and sometimes brilliant analysis of some points, but the Government have already rejected it in response to a committee report that says there is a problem with using multiple terms. It is just unbelievable.

They are an elected Government in the other place, and they will get their way. This is a revising Chamber, the purpose of which is to suggest to the Government where they might improve the legislation, even if we do not agree with it. If the Government have rejected this before we have even discussed it, what is the point? “We reject this entirely.” I am speechless about it, to be honest.

In responding to this debate, can the Minister explain who signed that off? Which Minister signed it off? I presume, if I am being fair, that it was missed. But it is a hell of a thing to miss before a debate in Committee, where the use of multiple terms such as “serious disruption”, “alarm” and “distress” concerns us all. Even if the Bill passes, we need some clarity around those terms. I will leave it there. I have more to say on the other groups of amendments, but I very much support what all noble Lords, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, said about this and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have listened to the noble Lord loud and clear. Governments are urged to respond to Select Committee reports within two months, and only last week the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was pressing for the response to the DPRRC. I will say two things, and I will be brief, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the two noble and learned Lords.

The Government are considering the DPRRC’s recommendation to list the definitions in the Bill, and I have listened to the points made loud and clear by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Hope, and will consider them and the strength of their views. I assure noble Lords that we will publish our response to the DPRRC report very soon. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beith, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, much as I would welcome publication of the response, what matters is what it contains and whether, even at this stage, the Minister recognises that it is still possible and well within the Government’s capacity to make an appropriate amendment on Report. I am not asking her to make a commitment to that effect, because she has obviously not been given the authority to do that, but we clearly have to return to this. I hope that we can do so on the basis of the Government recognising the point made by the Committee.

This is the trigger that allows police involvement in setting quite challenging conditions regarding protest and noise, which worry us a great deal. This is the key trigger, so for it not to be clear in the Bill or used in the sense in which people normally use it and understand it in courts is to imperil one of the key operating features of the Government’s proposals. I am not in the least enthusiastic about the Government’s proposals, but I think they should be coherent and capable of working. For that to happen, the Minister needs to look at this carefully. We will await what she brings forward on Report with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group contains two completely different issues: protection of the routes around Parliament and potential places where Parliament may sit while renovation work is undertaken; and the new statutory offence of public nuisance. How putting these two issues into one group is supposed to save time, I have no idea.

Clause 58 is about the obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament. Noble Lords, particularly those with mobility issues, have had difficulty accessing Parliament, particularly during Extinction Rebellion demonstrations, although I would not describe the Prime Minister being hindered from attending Prime Minister’s Questions in September 2020 as someone with mobility issues, unless you are talking about levelling up. It is a bit late for subtle jokes like that.

These provisions go much further. They expand obstruction to include

“making the passage of a vehicle more difficult.”

Presumably, any delay caused, even slow-moving traffic, would be covered by such an offence, and this could potentially criminalise any protest within the expanded controlled zone outlined in these proposals. Protests that have resulted in Members of Parliament being prevented from accessing Parliament have been few and far between, which suggests that the existing provisions are adequate. Clause 58 is unnecessary.

Clause 59 allows the Secretary of State to move the controlled area in the event of either House of Parliament being relocated because of building works under the restoration and renewal programme. This enables the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on protest to whatever area she thinks fit, however wide, by regulations. Parliament has no chance to question or vary the extent of the controlled area; it must either accept or reject the proposal made by the Secretary of State. The clause also gives the Secretary of State power to

“make provision for any other enactment, or any instrument made under an enactment, to have effect with modifications in consequence of regulations”

under this provision. This is too much power given in regulations to the Secretary of State, who could effectively ban protest almost anywhere within a wide area around any place where Parliament may be relocated to. Clause 59 is too broad and should not stand part of the Bill in its current form.

Parliament is at the heart of democracy in this country, but what about other institutions and organisations that are also important to the democratic process? What about news broadcasters or print journalists who hold politicians generally, and the Government in particular, to account? Where is the protection from protests aimed at disrupting a free media, such as the blockading or invading of television news and radio studios and newspaper printworks? This looks very much like protecting the Government and Government Ministers while doing nothing to protect those who hold the Government and Government Ministers to account.

Clause 60 creates a new statutory offence of public nuisance, as recommended by the Law Commission, but the provision appears to be far too wide and could potentially impact on all protests. Liberty’s briefing quotes Lord Justice Laws, who said in the case of Tabernacle v the Secretary of State for Defence in 2009:

“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”


If someone is seriously annoyed or inconvenienced, or is put at risk of being seriously annoyed or inconvenienced, by someone doing something, that person commits an offence if they intend to seriously annoy or inconvenience the public or a section of the public.

Almost every protest could be criminalised by this provision, and not just public protests on the streets, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. Are the Government a “section of the public”? If they are, take me away now. As a minority party in this House, we are, very often, unable to change what the Government plan to do, but we can seriously annoy the Government by pointing out the error of their ways and by holding them to account for their actions. Even if we do not have the intention of doing the Government serious harm—maybe—we may be at least reckless as to what harm it causes. Are we too to be criminalised by this provision, however much some noble Lords might like us to be?

The Government will point to the “reasonable excuse” defence contained in the provisions, but that applies only once a person has been charged with an offence under these provisions. The provisions do not say that a person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person does an act. Therefore, the police would be justified in arresting and charging people who believed that they had a reasonable excuse because the reasonable excuse provision applies only once a person has been charged.

We oppose in its entirety this provision as drafted, but we have Amendment 314, which removes the obstruction of

“a section of the public in their exercise of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large”

from these provisions, to at least narrow the extent of this proposed new offence. A counterdemonstration against a far-right group, for example, would be caught by the provisions of this new offence as drafted, but not as we suggest that it should be amended. We support Amendment 315, as far as it goes, in attempting to ensure that the serious harm applies not just to one person but must be caused to the public, further limiting the extent of the offence.

We also support Amendment 315A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, to leave out serious harm to a person if, as a result, the person suffers disease. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, we saw during the coronavirus pandemic, particularly with the attempt the ban the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common, restrictions on protest on public health grounds. That is why the police intervened in the Sarah Everard vigil. They felt that there was a public health risk. Although the provisions under which the Sarah Everard vigil was done have been repealed, this appears to be an attempt to reintroduce them. As drafted, it matters not whether the protesters intend to spread disease. They must only be reckless as to whether it would have such a consequence.

We also support Amendment 316—again, as far as it goes—but we would prefer there to be a reasonable excuse provision added to the offence itself, as I have said before, rather than protesters, for example, having to raise their reasonable excuse in court. People such as protesters, who have a reasonable excuse, should not be arrested in the first place. They should not be charged, and they should not have to appear in court. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I am sure that his amendment is right, but I am not sure that it is necessary. However, I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us.

This clause needs to be withdrawn and thought through again.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on Clauses 58 to 60. These three clauses will help ensure unimpeded vehicular access to Parliament and implement the Law Commission’s recommendation to codify in statute the common-law offence of public nuisance.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned pressure from “wherever” regarding Clause 58. In fact, the clause gives effect to a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which Harriet Harman is chair, to protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for those with business there, including, of course, Members of your Lordships’ House. The clause amends the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to allow a police officer to direct an individual to cease, or not begin, obstructing vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate. If a person does not comply with a direction, they will be committing an offence and may be arrested. Currently, parliamentarians and others conducting business in the Palace can face delays in entering and leaving Parliament via vehicular entrances, both impeding the functioning of our democracy and creating a security risk, with vehicles held stationary while police clear the way.

I should stress at this point that this power does not stop people protesting in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. Those who want to protest outside Parliament can continue to do so but, if asked by a police officer, must allow the passage of vehicles through the Palace’s gates or face the consequences.

Should Parliament need to relocate for any reason, such as the ongoing restoration and renewal works, Clause 59 provides the Home Secretary with the power to designate a new controlled area around Parliament’s new temporary location. This would ensure that the protections afforded by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, as amended by this Bill, applied wherever Parliament relocated to.

Clause 60 implements the Law Commission’s recommendation that the common-law offence of public nuisance should be codified in statute. We heard last week calls for the Government to be more diligent in implementing Law Commission recommendations, so I hope noble Lords will support and welcome this measure. Putting the long-standing common-law offence of public nuisance into statute will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden.

We have followed the Law Commission’s recommendation as closely as possible. In doing so, we are narrowing the scope of the existing common-law offence. That is being achieved by retaining the use of the terms “distress”, “annoyance”, “inconvenience” and “loss of amenity” within scope of the offence but by requiring that these harms be “serious”. We are also increasing the fault element of the offence. Currently, a person would be guilty through negligence; under the new offence, that is raised to intent or recklessness. Finally, we have made it a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their act or omission that caused a public nuisance.

The Law Commission’s report stated that as the offence is intended to address serious cases for which other offences are not adequate, if a maximum sentence is set then it should be high enough to cover these cases. We have therefore set the maximum custodial sentence at 10 years. It is worth noting that that is lower than the current unlimited maximum sentence available under the common-law offence.

I turn to the amendments tabled to Clause 60, beginning with Amendment 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As the clause is currently drafted, the offence is committed if a person’s act or omission causes serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of their rights. The amendment would limit the scope of the offence to only where serious harm is caused to the public. That would significantly narrow the scope of the offence. Most forms of public nuisance will, by their nature, impact on only a section of the public rather than the public generally.

However, I believe it is right that the offence be committed if it affects a section of the public. It is a fundamental part of the common-law offence of public nuisance that not every member of the public need be affected but a section of the public must be. Similarly, the offence should include where the rights of the public are infringed; the Law Commission concluded it is right to do so. For example, the effect of excessive and persistent noise or the release of a foul-smelling substance or gas in a public place may affect only a small number of local residents but potentially affects any member of the public who enters the relevant area.

Amendment 315 flows from a JCHR recommendation that aims to clarify that this offence is not committed if serious harm is caused to a person. That would be achieved by removing the word “person” from the definition of “serious harm”. I understand that the noble Lord is trying to clear up ambiguity as to whether an offence of public nuisance can be committed to a person, but I remain to be persuaded that the amendment is strictly necessary. Subsection (1) of the clause already sets out that the offence of public nuisance can be committed only against the public or a section of the public, with the references to persons in the definition of “serious harm” being an interpretive provision that does not affect the scope of the offence. That said, I am ready to consider this point further ahead of the next stage.

The amendment would also raise the threshold at which the offence is committed where an individual put the public at risk of serious harm. The amendment would raise that to “serious” risk of serious harm. We have followed the Law Commission’s recommendations in setting the scope of the offence and the thresholds at which it will be committed. The commission conducted a rigorous consultation on the offence, and it is right that, in this instance, we follow the recommendations set out in the report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

319A: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Offence of locking on
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) they intentionally—(i) attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land,(ii) attach a person to another person, to an object or to land, or(iii) attach an object to another object or to land,(b) that act causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—(i) two or more individuals, or(ii) an organisation,in a place other than in a dwelling, and(c) they intend that act to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both.(4) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (3) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.(5) In this section “dwelling” means—(a) a building or structure which is used as a dwelling, or(b) a part of a building or structure, if the part is used as a dwelling,and includes any yard, garden, grounds, garage or outhouse belonging to and used with a dwelling.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of “locking on”, involving the attachment of an individual to another individual, to an object or to land, or an object to another object or to land. It is a requirement of the offence that the act causes or is capable of causing serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation and that the accused intends that to occur or is reckless as to whether it will occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments tabled in my name are in response to the significant and repeated disruption we have seen over the last months by a small number of protesters. Their behaviour has clearly demonstrated that the balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of others tips far too far in favour of the protesters.

It is completely unacceptable for a minority of protesters to repeatedly and deliberately cause serious disruption to members of the public trying to go about their daily lives: trying to get to work or trying to get to hospital. Additionally, some of the tactics we have seen have been extremely dangerous, placing the police and the public, and the protesters themselves, at serious risk of harm.

We cannot have sections of our transport infrastructure or other critical infrastructure brought to a halt by a small group of protesters, whatever their cause. As I said in an earlier debate, we accept that some level of disruption is to be expected and tolerated from protest actions, but there is a line to be drawn. Insulate Britain, Extinction Rebellion and others have overstepped that line. The sentences recently handed down for breaches of the injunction obtained by National Highways demonstrate that clearly.

These amendments will strengthen the police’s ability to respond to the types of protests we have seen and reflect the seriousness of that type of behaviour. We need to update the criminal law and police powers to deter and prevent such wholly unacceptable disruption taking place. Civil injunctions have their place, but they are not enough on their own.

Amendments 319A and 319B introduce new offences of locking on and going equipped to lock on. These offences are designed to deter individuals from engaging in lock-on tactics, which cause serious disruption to the public and organisations. Lock-ons waste a considerable amount of police time and some, such as those on the side of buildings or on tripods or similar temporary structures erected by protesters, place the police and the protesters themselves at serious risk of injury or even death.

The locking-on offence will be committed where individuals attach themselves to other individuals, objects or land, or attach objects together or to land. It would be an offence only if their act causes or is capable of causing serious disruption. Furthermore, there must be an intention to lock on, and the offender must intend to cause, or be reckless as to causing, serious disruption. If found guilty of this offence, an individual will be liable to a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine, six months in prison or both. The offence will apply to lock-ons that cause, or are capable of causing, serious disruption on public and private land. However, private dwellings, including people’s houses, will be excluded.

Supporting this measure is the new offence of “going equipped to lock on”. This offence will apply where a person has with them an object with the intention that it will be used, either by themselves or someone else, in the course of or in connection with a lock-on. In this case, the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine.

Amendment 319C increases the maximum penalties for the offence of obstruction of the highway and clarifies the scope of the offence. Currently, individuals found guilty of this offence face a maximum fine of only £1,000. Recent actions by Insulate Britain have shown that this is disproportionality low compared with the widespread misery and disruption that an obstruction of a major road can cause. Anyone found guilty of this offence will now face an unlimited fine, up to six months in prison or both.

Additionally, this amendment clarifies that the offence is still committed even if free passage along the highway in question has already been suspended. This is to address the defence that some have used, claiming that they were not guilty of obstructing the highway because they joined a protest after the police had already closed the road to ensure protesters’ safety while they were being removed.

Amendment 319D creates a new offence of obstructing major transport works, such as airports, roads, railways and ports. As noble Lords will know, protesters have caused huge disruption in the construction of HS2. Additional costs to the project resulting from protester actions alone are estimated at £80 million. That is unacceptable.

Protesters have been able to evade conviction for highly disruptive and dangerous acts, such as tunnelling under Euston Square Gardens, on effectively a technicality, namely that HS2 was not carrying out construction work on the site at the time of the occupation. This new offence will make it clear that obstructing the construction, and preliminary work to construction, of important transport infrastructure constitutes criminal activity and that the Government see this as a serious offence.

Acts in scope of this offence would include interfering with construction apparatus or obstructing the surveying of land prior to the commencement of construction. Such behaviour will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or six months’ imprisonment.

The amendment defines “major transport works” as any works that are

“authorised directly by an Act of Parliament”

or by development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008. This would capture transport works of strategic importance that support the levelling up of our transport infrastructure across the country.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Will the Minister explain that a little further? In relation to the recent announcement about not proceeding with the Yorkshire leg of HS2 but instead carrying out a variety of other works, does that mean that these other works, which are not separately sanctioned by Parliament, will not be included within the scope of the clause?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Yes—it is confined to works that are authorised directly by an Act of Parliament, so, if they have not been, they are not in scope. As I said, the amendment would capture transport works of strategic importance that support the levelling up of our transport infrastructure.

To ensure that the police have the ability to proactively prevent protesters causing harm, we are introducing supporting stop and search powers for these and other protest-related offences. In its March 2021 report on policing protests, Getting the Balance Right?, HMICFRS argued that new stop and search powers could help police to prevent disruption and keep the public safe.

Amendment 319E amends Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow a police constable to stop and search a person or vehicle where they reasonably suspect that they will find an article made, adapted or intended for use in the course of committing one or other of the offences relating to locking-on offences, public nuisance, obstructing a highway or obstructing major transport works. While this power will significantly help police in preventing protesters using highly disruptive tactics, in a fast-moving protest situation it is not always possible for the police to form suspicions that certain individuals have particular items with them. Therefore, Amendment 319F provides for a police officer of the rank of inspector or above to authorise the use of the suspicionless stop and search power.

I have just been passed a note that says that Amendment 319D defines major transport works as any works that are

“authorised directly by an Act of Parliament”

or by development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008. That further clarifies my response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

That is very helpful of the Minister. It probably means that the announcement made last week about HS2 not proceeding but various other kinds of rail works going ahead will mean that none of those alternative rail works will be covered by these provisions.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It depends on whether they have been authorised directly by an Act of Parliament or by development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008. I will not pretend to know the detail of that at this point, but I can get the noble Lord the detail, if he would like me to.

Amendment 319F provides for a police officer of the rank of inspector or above to authorise the use of the suspicionless stop and search power. This mirrors the powers currently available to the police under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. As with existing Section 60 powers, this power can apply only in a specific locality and for a maximum of 24 hours, with the option to extend it if deemed necessary by a senior police officer. Amendments 319G to 319J make further provisions in respect of the suspicionless stop and search powers, in line with the existing Section 60 stop and search powers.

Finally, Amendment 319K introduces serious disruption prevention orders, or SDPOs. These new preventive court orders are designed to tackle protesters who are determined to repeatedly cause disruption to the public. There are two circumstances in which they can be made. A court will be able to impose an SDPO on conviction where an individual has been convicted of a protest-related offence and has been convicted of an earlier protest-related offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. Amendment 319AA would limit the offence of locking on—on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the deputy commissioner has in fact welcomed this offence—to cases where serious disruption had been caused, thereby excluding from the ambit of the offence cases where the use of a lock-on has not caused serious disruption but where the conduct is capable of doing so. Removing this element of the offence would make it possible for those who engage in such behaviour to evade prosecution. This could happen if they were quickly removed by the police or if they removed themselves from the lock-on after having caused some disruption which did not meet the threshold of “serious”.

In a similar vein, it is necessary that the offence can be committed if a person locks on and was reckless as to whether it would cause serious disruption. Amendment 319AB would remove this and have the offence be committed only if there was intent to cause serious disruption. If this amendment were made, a person who is aware of the risk of causing serious disruption but unreasonably took that risk anyway would not be captured by the offence.

What matters here is the protester’s intention and/or the impact of their actions. It may simply be fortuitous that the action of locking on did not cause serious disruption, but, if that was the intent, we believe the offence should apply. Equally, if there was not an intention to cause serious disruption but it was a risk of which they were aware and they unreasonably took that risk, again we believe that such conduct should be covered by the new offence.

A few noble Lords talked about bikes, specifically people innocently going about their business with a bike lock. It is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for carrying the equipment in question. For example, carrying a bike lock for the purposes of locking one’s bike to a designated space for bikes could be considered a reasonable excuse. The prosecution must also demonstrate that the person intended to use the item in the course of or in connection with the lock-on offence.

A couple of noble Lords asked whether this was a ban on protests. HMICFRS concluded that protest banning orders would not be compatible with human rights, but the report considered only orders that would outright ban an individual from protesting. The two are quite different. SDPOs grant the courts discretion to impose any prohibitions and requirements necessary to protect the public from protest-related offences, breaches of injunctions and serious disruption. Depending on the individual circumstances, this might mean that the court will not consider it necessary to stop individuals attending protests. Also, a court as a public authority must not act incompatibly with protesters’ Article 10 and Article 11 rights. This means that the court must decide whether making an SDPO is proportionate in an individual case.

Amendments 319AC, 319BC, 319DC and 319P seek to probe the maximum fine for the new offences created by the government amendments. What were level 5 fines, or a maximum of £5,000, were replaced in 2015 as a result of reforms introduced by the coalition Government through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. We think that an unlimited fine is appropriate in the case of these new offences; a level 1 or level 2 fine, as proposed by the noble Lord, would not, in our view, reflect the seriousness of the conduct in question. An unlimited maximum fine allows courts to determine the level of any fine on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the ability of the offender to pay.

Amendment 319BA probes what objects it will be a criminal offence to possess under the “in connection with” limb of the going equipped to lock-on offence. This could include items that supported the deployment of a lock-on but did not form a part of it—for example, tools to set up structures to be used in the course of a lock-on.

Amendment 319BB would limit the offence such that a person would only be guilty of going equipped to lock on if they are carrying the equipment to commit the lock-on offence themselves. This would mean that a group of protesters could each legally carry items to lock on for use by others in the group.

Amendment 319DA would limit the scope of the offence to where a person obstructs the setting out of lines for major transport works or actual construction or maintenance. We think that it is necessary to include acts that obstruct steps necessary for facilitating construction. This would include steps such as environmental surveys and the translocation of species. If protesters delay ecological surveys into nesting or hibernation season, construction works may be delayed by a period of a year, potentially adding millions to the cost of HS2.

Amendment 319DB seeks further to narrow the scope of the offence to omit activity where a person interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus necessary for the works. This amendment would enable protesters to interfere with works without committing the offence simply by interfering with equipment rather than the relevant works. It is necessary that this limb of the offence remains.

Finally, turning to the amendments on serious disruption prevention orders, one of the circumstances in which an order can be imposed is when at least two protest-related offences have been committed. Amendments 319L and 319M seek to raise the burden of proof for demonstrating that two offences were protest related from “on the balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”. We have had this debate before, including in the context of serious violence reduction orders, and it is our view that these are civil orders and that it is therefore entirely appropriate for the civil standard of proof to apply in the making of an order. It is already the case that the court must consider the SDPO necessary to prevent a person committing harmful protest-related acts. In the event of a prosecution for breach of an order, of course the prosecution would need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Amendment 319N removes the ability of the courts to impose an SDPO on application. We think it is essential that the courts should have the power to impose an order in such circumstances. It will allow SDPOs to be placed on those who are intent on causing unjustifiable disruption at a protest but who have not met the criteria for an SDPO on conviction. It is entirely right that, where there is sufficient evidence of a pattern of behaviour that an SDPO be imposed. The public should not have to risk unjustifiable disruption caused by an individual who the police knew was likely to cause such disruption simply because they did not have two prior protest-related convictions. This would mean that even if someone had two convictions, if the application was not made at the time of the second conviction, an application could not be made until they were convicted of a third protest-related offence. This approach is consistent with other risk-based civil orders that may be made in the absence of a conviction—for example, domestic abuse protection orders.

Amendments 319Q to 319U remove the ability for a court to renew an SDPO. Where there is strong evidence that that an individual would go on to cause serious disruption, it is appropriate that the facility exists for SDPOs to be renewed.

Very finally, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on the DPRRC report, we consider that the negative procedure for the SDPO’s statutory guidance to be appropriate, but we are studying the report and will respond soon.

The question of causing or contributing to felt like a bit of an exam question at the end of quite a long day. I have three Acts in which causing or contributing feature: the Water Act 2014, the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about whether these measures will be taken in the new year, the answer is yes.

I am obviously disappointed that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, have signified their objections to the amendments tabled today but, given that, I will not move them. However, the Committee should be in no doubt that we will retable them for Report and, if necessary, seek the opinion of the House. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 319A.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I want to be absolutely clear about something. I am sure that the answer must be yes, but it would be good to hear it from her, as this is my first time speaking from the Dispatch Box on this Bill. On these SDPOs, I always thought that we operated on the basis that you were innocent until proven guilty in this country; we would all defend that right. These orders can be imposed and have an effect on people who are totally innocent of any crime whatever. Can she confirm that, as it is good to get it absolutely clear on the record? If that is the case, as I am sure it is, that is totally outrageous.

That and other reasons are exactly why we need to ensure that there is the maximum amount of time to enable this House and people outside it to discuss and debate these issues. For that reason, I think it is absolutely right that these amendments be withdrawn. Can these orders be imposed on totally innocent people who have committed no crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Does the noble Lord want a response on the nature of the orders?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I want confirmation that the Government intend to bring orders in which would be imposed on totally innocent people who have committed no crime.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

They are civil orders; they are preventive measures.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

If I can assist the House, the first amendment moved in the group was that of the noble Baroness, not mine.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that people who applied to the Windrush Compensation Scheme have their claim decided as a matter of urgency.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we remain committed to ensuring that people receive every penny of compensation that they are entitled to and we have offered more than £37.2 million. There is no cap on the amount that we will pay and we have removed the end date of the scheme. Suggestions that only 5% have received a payment are misleading; 29% of the claims that we have received have had a payment. We are processing claims as quickly as we can and continue to make improvements. Many of these were recognised in the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report, but we recognise that there is more to do and will consider the report carefully.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I declare an interest as chair of the Windrush Commemoration Committee, which is placing a national Windrush monument at Waterloo station, where I arrived when I was a 10 year-old in 1960. It will celebrate the enormous contribution of the Windrush generation to Britain.

But the Windrush scandal has created a stain on British history, and many innocent people branded as illegal, now in their 70s and 80s, are still traumatised by the burden of proof and the treatment that they have endured. There is an overwhelming feeling of distrust and a feeling that their compensation claims will never be paid. So to reassure these British citizens who have served this country well for generations, will the Government consider appointing an independent body to deal with the Windrush compensation scheme before any more of these claimants pass away?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and all that she has done for the Windrush generation. I totally agree with her that the scandal of it, which spanned several decades, and Parliaments and Governments of every colour, is indeed a stain on our history.

With regard to the evidence, we have designed the scheme to be as simple as possible, and its whole rationale is to pay compensation, as opposed to not paying it. So the scheme operates on the balance of probabilities, and we will work with individuals to support them to provide and obtain as much information as possible to support their claim. We want to make it easy, not difficult, for them to do so, so caseworkers will contact other government departments and third parties, such as previous employers, if necessary. In July, we published refreshed casework guidance that clearly sets out how caseworkers should apply the balance of probability and go about gathering that evidence. We want people to receive the maximum amount of compensation, not the minimum, to which they are perfectly entitled.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Question refers to people who have applied to the compensation scheme, but what proactive action will the Government take to reach out and contact those who may be eligible to apply but still do not trust the Home Office and so have not put in an application yet?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said previously in Questions about the Windrush scheme, we have reached out not just to communities where we think applications might be forthcoming but to communities and faith leaders overseas, because we want as many people to apply as are entitled to—not just entitled to but deserve—the compensation for their suffering. To go back to the noble Baroness’s previous question, moving the scheme out of the Home Office would risk significantly delaying vital payments to those affected.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee report said:

“We can only conclude that four years on from the Windrush scandal, vital lessons have still not been learned by the Department.”


It is four years on. What is the Minister’s explanation for this shameful failure?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it was possibly a year ago, even two years ago, that I stood up and acknowledged that the scheme was not running as swiftly as it could, that people were not getting the compensation that they should and that we needed to do more to reach out. I fully accepted that criticism.

But, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, we continue to make improvements to the scheme. The result of this is evidenced in the amount of compensation paid out rising from less than £3 million, which it was at the time, to over £31.6 million, with a further £5.6 million having been offered. We have brought in some new support measures to those claiming on behalf of relatives who have passed away. We have also increased our number of caseworkers to over 80, with another 34 coming online shortly. For those needing more support in applying, we have funded an organisation to provide free independent claimant assistance to individuals.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s personal commitment to this issue, which is very recognisable in the answers that she has given. However, only one in 20 people eligible for compensation have received it. The Government need to move faster and at pace because, as the Minister has indicated, people have died, and it would be nice for others to see resolution in their lifetimes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. That claim that only 5% of people, or one in 20, have received a payment is actually a bit misleading. When we first set up the scheme, we made an estimate, which I remember saying to the House was quite difficult to make, of the number of people we thought might be eligible. That estimate was originally 15,000 and was then revised down to 11,500. It is now 4,600. Obviously, we will try our best to ensure that anyone who comes forward gets the compensation that they deserve. We now estimate, based on what I have just said to my noble friend, that 29% of people who have submitted a claim have received a payment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s tireless efforts. We now know that there are lengthy delays, even in clear-cut cases, to making an initial payment. But we know that the Home Office is capable of moving quickly: it has tabled 18 pages of new offences and police powers for the police Bill within two months of the Home Secretary asking for them. So what is it about the Windrush generation that means that they are not a priority for the Home Office?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think that statement is incorrect. The Windrush generation and the Windrush scheme are a priority for the Home Office. I have been through some of the improvements that we have made: we are increasing the number of caseworkers, and the amount of compensation has risen quite dramatically since we put some of the changes in place, from £3 million to over £31.6 million, with a further £5.6 million having been offered. There is no cap on the amount of compensation that we will pay out. We have also removed the time limit so that as many people who can apply do.

Some of the cases can be quite complex and therefore take longer than might be normal—and, of course, we are going back decades in time—but we are keener than ever, and it remains a priority, to ensure that anyone who is due compensation will be paid it.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Wendy Williams was clear about the importance of trusted community and grass-roots organisations in reaching claimants who might be nervous about interacting directly with the Home Office, but we now hear that the stakeholder advisory group that brought those bodies together to help government to

“build trust with the affected communities”

has been disbanded. So what will government put in place to offset the absence of that group and to ensure that those communities can be reached?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as I said, we have done extensive community outreach. Since 2018, we have held approximately 200 engagement and outreach events across the country, including approximately 120 one-to-one surgeries to help people with their documentation for the Windrush scheme. We have held 80 public engagement events to raise awareness of the scheme. I will certainly take the stakeholder engagement point back to the Home Office, because it is a good point.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I quite understand why it is necessary to be very sensitive and careful about handing out compensation money. After all, we have seen a very few awful cases of compensation claims when it came to Grenfell, for instance, which were simply criminal. However, I associate myself with every single sentiment which the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has expressed. Windrush is an example of injustice, and at a time when there are wicked people trying to tear apart races in this country, putting one against the other, the solution to this Windrush scandal cannot come soon enough.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I think I associated myself with pretty much every point that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made. As my noble friend said, the Windrush scandal is an injustice, and for decades no one did anything about it. We will do what we can as quickly as we can to ensure that people get the compensation that they deserve as soon as possible.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I come back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett about the delay and the four-year period. I do not think that my noble friend received any satisfactory explanation as to why it has taken so long. The Home Affairs Committee has called for the scheme to be transferred from the Home Office to an independent organisation, and a National Audit Office report into the compensation scheme found that the scheme was

“not meeting its objective of compensating claimants quickly”.

As I am sure that the Minister will be aware, on 21 June—some five months ago—the shadow Home Secretary called on the Government to give control of the Windrush compensation scheme to a new independent body following systematic mismanagement—that mismanagement being the delay and how few people have so far been compensated. I do not think we have heard any convincing answer as to why responsibility for the scheme should not be handed over to a new independent body.

Clearly the Home Office has failed; it has been criticised by the National Audit Office for that failure. We have had four years of delay. The Minister, on behalf of the Home Office, has not been able to tell us how many more years it will take the Home Office to complete this process. Can I urge her to go back to the Home Office and suggest that the management of the scheme is now transferred to a new independent body, as we called for five months ago, as the Home Affairs Committee has now also called for, and in the light of the National Audit Office report that said that people were not being compensated quickly?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thought that I had pointed out both the improvements to the compensation paid since we made changes in December and the difficulties in suddenly moving a scheme out of the Home Office to an independent body. It would not necessarily result in faster and higher payments. As I have said, neither the amount of the payment nor the length of time in which people can apply for compensation are capped.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dobbs. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what is happening about those who have been deported to the West Indies?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

When someone is deported, it is usually for criminality. I do not have up-to-date figures on people who have been deported who would also be eligible for Windrush. Rather than make them up at the Dispatch Box, which I am disinclined to do, I will get those figures to my noble friend.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister, who we all have a lot of respect for. She said two years ago that she was frustrated at the delays. She has done her best at the Home Office and there are still huge delays. It was recommended months ago that the scheme should be transferred to an independent body. Would it not give greater trust and confidence to the people who are seeking compensation if some action was taken on this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I did try to explain what action has been taken, which has meant that compensation has risen from less than £3 million to over £31.6 million, with a further £5.6 million being offered since the changes were made in December. As I have explained, transferring out of the Home Office would not necessarily result in further improvements.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for the Question has now elapsed.

Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 September. The Committee will recall that it debated the Antique Firearms Regulations on 6 January this year. The regulations introduced a statutory definition of antique firearms to prevent criminals from exploiting a lack of legal clarity to obtain old but functioning firearms for use in crime. The regulations came into effect on 22 March this year and were based closely on long-standing Home Office guidance. They now define in law which firearms can safely be regarded as antique and therefore exempt from control, and those that must be subject to licensing.

Here, I have to issue an apology. Following concerns raised by law enforcement, the new definition does not include seven types of cartridge, which, together with their associated firearms, have featured most often in crimes involving antique firearms. This means that these particular firearms can no longer be regarded as antique. However, owners were able to retain them on a firearms certificate and a six-month transition period was included in the relevant commencement regulations to allow owners to license, sell or otherwise lawfully dispose of their firearms. That transition period ended on 22 September this year.

During the transition period, it was brought to the Government’s attention that a category of cartridges that had previously been included in the Home Office guidance had been inadvertently omitted from the regulations. These cartridges are for vintage rifles, punt guns and shotguns with bores greater than 10. The regulations, which this Committee may recall are unusually technical and lengthy, listing over 450 old cartridge types, went through checks prior to being laid. Regrettably, however, this omission was not picked up. Unless we correct the error, owners of the omitted firearms would have to license them, incurring unnecessary inconvenience and expense, with no benefit to public safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Labour Party supports these regulations. They are largely technical in nature. This instrument corrects an error in the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021. In his summing-up of the brief debate in the other place on 8 November, the Minister, Kit Malthouse, described the whole experience of correcting this error as a “chastening experience” for him and the firearms team at the Home Office, and he expressed the hope that there would not be a recurrence of a similar error in future. I thank him for that candour, and I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the apology.

In 2017, the Government legislated through the Police and Crime Act to provide a statutory definition of an antique firearm. The Home Office consulted on what the cut-off date for manufacture should be, the propulsion systems and the cartridges. This information informed the 2021 regulations. It is these regulations that are being updated. The instrument corrects an omission from the regulations. It amends the schedule to the 2021 regulations by adding cartridges for vintage rifles, punt guns and shotguns with bores greater than 10. It also makes minor corrections to the descriptions of some other types of cartridges in the schedule.

From reading the short debate in the other place and the Library note, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the territorial extent of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland. What is the position in Northern Ireland on similar issues with antique firearms? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. Secondly, the Library note explains that the ongoing approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation is twofold. The first is to establish a non-statutory group of experts who will meet annually to consider the latest developments in the criminal use of antique firearms. Secondly, the Home Office is to carry out a three-year review of the 2021 regulations. Can the Minister say whether these groups have been established and when they are next due to meet?

In his response to the debate on 8 November in the other place, the Minister spoke of the prevalence of the use of antique firearms in criminal activity. He said that the National Ballistics Intelligence Service

“saw a rise in the use of antique firearms between 2008 and 2016, with 95 uses in 2016, and recoveries have decreased slightly.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/11/21; col. 7.]

He also said that there had been six fatalities since 2006 from the use of these weapons. This data seems very out of date. When would the Minister reasonably expect to have a more up-to-date analysis of the extent of the problem of the use of antique weapons in criminal activity?

Finally, in the other place, my honourable friend Conor McGinn asked the Minister about the new statutory guidance to chief police officers on firearms licensing coming into force. He asked about the information to be provided about any medical conditions, particularly mental health conditions, of people applying for licences. I understand that this is outside the scope of this statutory instrument, but can the Minister say whether the twofold monitoring approach, which I mentioned earlier, will cover developments in mental capacity assessments of those who currently hold firearm licences?

We support these regulations. Our priority, like the Government’s, is to protect the public, and we agree that a systematic, ongoing review of regulations is the best way to achieve this.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked whether there is a new type of gun. The answer is no. The classes of vintage rifles, punts and shotguns with bores greater than 10, which were omitted, are now being inserted. Nothing new is being inserted—these should have been inserted in the first place, hence my apology.

As to the definition of antique firearms, that is specified in the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021. They must have been manufactured before 1 September 1939.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the territorial extent. It is a devolved approach. They have a similar approach to Great Britain. Shooting in Scotland is covered by the same legislation as England and Wales, apart from air rifles.

I will consult the department on the data when I go back. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, thinks that this data seems to be a bit out of date. The data I have is that the antiques firearms recovered per year in criminal circumstances increased from eight in 2008 to 95 in 2016. The number of recoveries has decreased slightly since 2016, down to 80 in 2020. I will see if I have any more up-to-date information for him. I will also find out for him when the non-statutory groups of experts in the three-year review are due to meet, because I am not sure at this stage.

I hope I have answered all the questions.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I have one additional question. Will the review groups also look at the mental capacity and that other aspect of the licensing process?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will definitely get back to the noble Lord on that. I think there has been something on that recently.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I raised the point that the rifles used by the British Army in 1917 are effectively the same as the rifles used in 1940. The same is true of the German and American armies. Why is there this artificial cut-off? The rifles fire the same bullets. They are using the same calibre of bullets, the same propulsion, the same white powder for the same lethal intent. Some clarification of that would help. If it is about killing capacity, it is there in these slightly older weapons.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I get the point the noble Lord is making. Clearly, there has to be a cut-off somewhere, but I will find that out for him.

Motion agreed.

Emergency Services: Ministers of Religion

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to establish a multi-professional strategy for the emergency services concerning the attendance of ministers of religion at the scene of situations involving serious injury.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, today of all days, we remember Sir David Amess, who tragically died carrying out his duties as a public servant. Our thoughts and prayers are with his loved ones, as well as with all those involved in scenes of traumatic injury. Decisions regarding the management of such situations remain an operational issue for the emergency services involved. There are no plans to establish a multi-professional strategy on this issue.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the tragic death of Sir David Amess brought to national attention a problem that experts and academics in the field of disaster and emergency response have recognised for some time—namely, the lack of a considered approach to the role of ministers of religion and their access to victims at end-of-life in disasters and emergencies. While I welcome the fact that the Archbishop of Westminster and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have opened a dialogue on this topic, does my noble friend agree that a national standard is required? Will she undertake a study, preliminary to that, of other jurisdictions such as Israel, Italy and even Northern Ireland, where practice tends to be more nuanced and accommodating?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

There are certainly lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions, as my noble friend said. I totally empathise with the situation that both David Amess’s family and the police found themselves in during that dreadful incident. Given the people who are involved, I hope and expect a sensible and pragmatic conclusion to be arrived at through the discussions.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken with compassion, but is there not a danger that the attendance of ministers of religion at the scene of an accident could hamper the work of the emergency services? If there are serious injuries, the victim will be taken to hospital, where they can, if desired, call on the excellent chaplaincy service, which works 24 hours a day.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that chaplains operate 24 hours a day in hospitals. My noble friend’s question, of course, was about Sir David Amess, who was at the point of death when his family wanted him to have the last rites from a Catholic priest. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is correct to point out that the criteria for the police to consider in such incidents are protection of life, the risks at the scene and the preservation of evidence at the scene.

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the joint study group announced by the cardinal archbishop. Does the Minister agree that good outcomes from that study would include both further training and education to ensure that police officers understand the significance of spiritual comfort at the point of death, for the dying of whatever faith, and an increased role for police chaplaincy?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am sure that what will come out of that group are considerations of whether any changes are required to the guidance issued to police officers faced with such situations. I know that hospital chaplains are available around the clock to cater for a range of different needs and provide comfort, both during a period of illness and at the point of death.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the circumstances surrounding access for the local priest to be with Sir David in his final hours put everyone concerned in an exceptionally difficult position. Will my noble friend the Minister look at the US model, where emergency managers can identify and engage with faith-based groups in emergency preparedness activities, building partnerships with them to establish protocols for use at the scene of serious injuries and integrating faith leaders into emergency situations involving serious injury?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will certainly take my noble friend’s point back. I know the College of Policing welcomes engagement with faith community leaders and others who have concerns about the current authorised professional practice to understand views and consider possible next steps for this issue.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, surely there is a difference between the perpetrator sitting at the scene of a stabbing waiting to be arrested and an explosion where forensic recovery is essential. Can the Minister not bring together faith and police leaders nationally to discuss the potential use of discretion, in appropriate cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is right, in the sense that it sounds like the perpetrator was standing there, waiting to be arrested, but there has to be a framework around these things. Of course, forensic preservation is crucial at such scenes, even where it is apparent what has gone on. I am sure that the group will consider the noble Lord’s proposals.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I know this is incredibly difficult but, as we can carry donor cards and things, would it not be possible to consider compiling a register of those of us who would wish to receive the last rites at the point of death? I am sure that would bring great comfort to many families.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We are talking here about the point of death of someone who was killed in very unusual circumstances. My family know what I would want, and I am sure noble Lords in this House have let their families know what they would want. But there is a point there about pragmatism and considering someone’s last wishes at the scene of crime.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, in these difficult times, is it not possible that people’s spiritual needs, as well as their physical needs, could be supported, and if possible adhered to, during serious injury and illness? Could the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care work together to send out a directive advising on these matters?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The group led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, joined by the Catholic Church and the College of Policing, will determine what such a framework looks like. It was a surprise to me that this had not come up before, and therefore it needs some thinking about, including on whether changes are required to the guidance issued to police faced with such situations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Our thoughts too are very much with the family and friends of Sir David Amess, particularly today. As has been said, Cardinal Vincent Nichols and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have agreed to create a group reviewing last rites access for priests at crime scenes. Presumably, there is a need to ensure that a crime scene remains protected and not disturbed, and that the person seeking access is who they say they are. First, has this matter of access or lack of it for ministers of religion been a concern before and, if so, with representatives of which faiths? Secondly, is the question of such access presently covered by College of Policing or other guidelines?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It does not seem to have come up as an issue before, and that is precisely why this group is meeting to see if there are any gaps in the guidance issued to police to deal with such incidents.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the cruellest aspects of the lockdown was the denial of visits from priests to give last rites to those dying in care homes. For Catholics, at least, that was as awful as not seeing beloved family. The official advice was to say prayers by Zoom. Would the noble Baroness note that, while there is an Amess amendment as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, this is less a regulatory or legislative matter and more a deficit of cultural capital when it comes to Christian practices? Would she also note that the overtechnocratic approach illustrated by some of the replies today misses what really matters in society?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Not only do I empathise with what really matters to some people at the point of death—it made me think that, if I was in such a situation, I would want a priest there—but I am very glad that Cardinal Nichols is meeting with the NPCC. That group will consider a more nuanced approach that can be reflected in police guidance about facing such a situation.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. That concludes Oral Questions for today.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

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

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for setting out these amendments, which call for new offences to tackle street harassment and so-called sex for rent, propose a review of the offences of exposure and administering a substance with intent, and seek to address cases which involve the so-called rough sex defence.

On Amendments 284 and 285, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, no one can doubt the gravity of the issue these amendments seek to address. Like the Committee, the House and the whole country, I was very shocked by the tragic events of September; first, Sabina Nessa and then the revelations about how the murderer of Sarah Everard had abused his position as a police officer to commit his awful crimes. While these are the most serious violent crimes which can happen to women, they form just one part of what Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary referred to in its recent report as an epidemic of violence against women and girls.

What is so striking is how these crimes have galvanised so many women and girls across the country to talk about their experiences and their suffering. To many of us—although not, of course, to those who experience it—the sheer scale of the problem has been shocking. Many of the more than 180,000 responses which we received to the call for evidence on the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls strategy addressed this issue, as did the report published by Plan International UK in September. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics in August about perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment were equally shocking. For example, two out of three women aged between 16 and 34 had experienced one form of harassment in the previous 12 months. Thankfully, those experiences are not of the same level of gravity as what happened to the women who I have just spoken about, but they are still deeply traumatic to their victims.

I assure noble Lords that tackling violence against women and girls is a huge priority for this Government. We published our new Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls strategy in July. As the Home Secretary wrote in her foreword, violence against women and girls is not inevitable, and

“This Strategy will help bring about real and lasting change.”


On the issue of sexual harassment in public places, it sets out a number of commitments. A national communications campaign will challenge this kind of behaviour and ensure victims know how and where to report it. To ensure police are confident about how to respond to public sexual harassment, the College of Policing will provide new guidance for officers; this work is already well advanced. To prevent the behaviour happening in the first place, we will work to deepen our understanding of who commits these crimes, why they do it and how this behaviour may escalate, including through our new funding on what works to tackle violence against women and girls.

The strategy confirmed that we will pilot a tool, StreetSafe, which will enable the public to anonymously report areas where they feel unsafe and identify what it was about the location that made them feel that way, so that police can use that information to improve community safety. The pilot launched in August. The strategy also confirmed that the Government are investing a further £25 million in the safer streets fund to enable local areas to put in place innovative crime prevention measures to ensure that women and girls feel safe in public spaces. The successful bids were announced in October. The strategy also confirmed that the Home Office would launch a £5 million safety of women at night fund focused on the prevention of violence against women and girls in public spaces at night. The successful bids were announced on 10 November, and our commitment to this issue cannot be in doubt.

However, there is rightly considerable interest in the legal position, including whether there should be a new law specifically targeted at this type of behaviour. I pay tribute to parliamentarians in both Houses for their campaigning on this issue and to the organisations Plan International UK and Our Streets Now—the latter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, said, set up by two sisters out of a determination that other women and girls should not suffer sexual harassment as they had.

As noble Lords will know from the tackling VAWG strategy, while there is not a specific offence of street harassment, there are a number of offences in place that capture that behaviour—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who talked about behaviours—depending on the specific circumstances, including offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, we are looking carefully at where there might be gaps in existing law and how a specific offence of public sexual harassment could address those. That work continues and is being informed by the results of the call for evidence and by our direct engagement with campaigners on this issue. We have not yet reached a position on it and I cannot commit to have done so ahead of Report; as the strategy notes, this is a complex area and it is important that we take time to ensure that any potential legislation is necessary, proportionate and reasonably defined.

On Amendments 292A and 292B, we can all agree that so-called sex for rent is an exploitative and abhorrent phenomenon that has no place in our society. That said, there are existing offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that might be used to prosecute the practice, including the Section 52 offence of causing or inciting prostitution for gain and the Section 53 offence of controlling prostitution for gain. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment and can capture instances of “sex for rent”, dependent on the circumstances of the individual case. The Section 52 offence would apply when the identified victim had been caused or incited to engage in prostitution. In addition, the online safety Bill will also place duties on sites that host user-generated content, such as social media companies, to protect their users from illegal content. This would include posts that are committing the offence of inciting—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting, but is it right that those existing sexual offences all require the victims in “sex for rent” cases to be characterised as engaging in prostitution?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I was going to get on to that, because I had noted the noble and learned Lord’s point. There are two answers. The first is that anyone who makes the report to the police will benefit from the anonymity provisions in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The second is that the Section 52 offence applies when an identified victim has been caused to engage in prostitution or incited to do so, whether or not the prostitution takes place. In other words, a victim does not have to identify as a prostitute for the Sections 52 and 53 offences to be used. I hope that partly answers his question, although he does not look entirely convinced.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

How can the Minister tell when I am wearing my mask?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can see the noble and learned Lord’s eyebrows.

In 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service amended its guidance Prostitution and Exploitation of Prostitution to include specific reference to the potential availability of charges under the Sections 52 and 53 offences where there is evidence to support the existence of “sex for rent” arrangements, and—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, pointed out—in January this year the CPS authorised the first charge for “sex for rent” allegations under Section 52.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)]

If the offences were in place in 2003 and the guidance updated in 2019, why does the Minister believe that it is only this year that the first charge has been made for sex for rent?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not disagree that it is only now being prosecuted. The point is that it is being prosecuted, and that is what I was trying to get over. The defendant in that case has pleaded guilty to two counts of inciting prostitution for gain, but as there is due to be a trial on an unrelated matter, it is probably not wise for me to comment further on this.

The noble Baroness talked about landlords. It is imperative that we ensure that landlords are not able to use their status and exploit any legal grey areas that could abuse their tenants or any other vulnerable people in society. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, also cited a number of examples. Local authorities and police forces are aware of these issues, and they will ensure that those convicted of these offences are banned from engaging in managing or letting residential accommodation.

Amendments 292M and 292R would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of two offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003: namely, those of “exposure” and “administering a substance with intent”. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has explained, both amendments are in response to recent events. I appreciate the issues that the noble and learned Lord has raised, but I do not think that it is a requirement to put into primary legislation. I am sure he will remember from his tenure as Secretary of State for Justice that the Ministry of Justice, together with the Home Office, keeps the operation of the criminal law under review, and if there are problems they will act where necessary.

I am not sure whether it was the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who pointed out that we need to make legislation following full investigation of the facts and the consequences of making new laws, but we will continue to review the law in these areas and to ensure that it is up to date and fully equipped to protect victims of exposure and, indeed, spiking.

In relation to exposure and the police response to allegations in respect of Sarah Everard’s killer, the Committee will be aware that the first part of the inquiry announced by the Home Secretary will examine the killer’s previous behaviour and will establish a comprehensive account of his conduct leading up to his conviction, as well as any opportunities missed. We will, of course, want to learn any lessons arising from this and other aspects of the inquiry.

The recent reports of spiking—adding substances to drinks and injecting victims with needles—are concerning, and I have every sympathy with victims and anyone who might feel unable to go out and enjoy a night out for fear that they might be targeted. Any spiking constitutes criminal conduct, and the necessary offences are on the statute book. As with any crime, it falls to the police to investigate and ensure that those responsible are dealt with in accordance with the law.

The police are, of course, operationally independent, and it would not be right for me to comment on specific instances and allegations at this time when there are ongoing investigations, but they are taking it very seriously and working at pace to gather intelligence and identify perpetrators. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to urgently review the extent and scale of the issue and is receiving regular updates from the police, as has been widely reported. This is being done using resources at local, regional and national level, including the National Crime Agency.

Finally, turning to Amendment 292T, we return to the issue of the so-called rough sex defence. Noble Lords will remember the extensive debates on this topic during the passage of the now Domestic Abuse Act 2021. In that Act, the Government responded to concerns from the public and from across the House that defendants, invariably men, argued that the death of a person, invariably a woman, was caused by “rough sex gone wrong”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what a moving and powerful debate we have had this evening. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her noble friend will have been moved by it as well. The real challenge that has been presented to the Minister and the Government is how to capture what has been said in this Chamber tonight in relation to the practice that takes place in very difficult and challenging circumstances.

I am not going to rush this, and I am pleased that noble Lords have not rushed this either, as this is too important a debate to be rushed. In speaking to their amendment, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Masham, spoke in such a way that gave respect to the awfulness of what happened with David Amess. I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses. Out of the horror of that situation, they are trying to make something positive happen in future. We have all been moved by that. The challenge for the Government is how to do something about it.

I say gently to the Minister that the system will respond in a bureaucratic, almost insensitive way, by saying, “It’s really difficult, Minister. It’s very tough to do something about this.” This is one of those situations that requires the system to respond. Human needs to speak to system and make it work, and that is not easy—it really is not.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, brought her perspective from Northern Ireland. She did incredible work there in trying to ensure that, among the terrorist atrocities, somehow or other there was comfort for the dying and bereaved, as well as the pursuit of justice. That was a beacon in that situation, and they made it happen there. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, talked about the situation in his own family. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made a very moving, personal statement about the horror of what happened to her and the tension between trying to comfort the dying while ensuring that the police were allowed to do their work.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made a brilliant speech. I am not a lawyer so, when I spoke just now, I spoke as a politician who demands that the system works. There are brilliant lawyers on both sides of this Chamber who can dissect the law; that is not me. I say to those with legal expertise, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I may not have that legal expertise, but I know what the public would expect the system and the law to do. I know how they would expect the legal system, the courts and the police to respond, and how they would expect the system to work.

The phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, used was, “Who owns the death?” Who owns it? I will talk about myself because that is easier to do. Maybe I have got this wrong, but my sense is that, if I were attacked in the street and stabbed—God forbid that this happens to any of us, but if it happened to me and I was dying—I would not want a police officer ensuring that the crime scene was not compromised. If my wife, or my children, or my grandparents were nearby, that is who I would want to come. I would not care if the crime scene was compromised; I would not.

I know that that is difficult for the police because the police will want—as, of course, in generality, we would all want—the perpetrator to be caught, put before the courts and dealt with. I am just saying what Vernon Coaker, a human being, would want: I would want my family or my friend, if they were nearby, to be allowed to come and see me and talk to me, in the way that no doubt the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds has had to do on many occasions. I would want them to give me comfort, and to give me a sense that I could say goodbye properly to my loved ones.

I do not know what that means for the law, to be honest, or what it means for the guidance, but I do not believe that it is impossible to learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, laid out, from other countries or jurisdictions, or from what is done elsewhere, to find a means of balancing those two priorities in a more sensitive way than perhaps we see at the moment. That is all that this Chamber is asking for—and that is what the Minister needs to demand from the system. The system will say, “It’s tough, it’s difficult. We need to do that, but we have also got to preserve the crime scene.” The Chamber is saying, “Yes, preserve the crime scene; yes, let’s catch the perpetrators, but not at the expense of everything else.” Let it not be at the expense of human beings knowing what is best for themselves—of individuals at the point of death being able to choose who they want to see.

I suggest that the majority of us would want our family with us, even if it meant some compromise to the crime scene. That is what I think and what I believe this Chamber is saying and demanding. The debate has been incredibly moving; people have laid out their souls. They have done it with a sense of purpose, to say to the law and the system: it needs to change; this cannot happen again. If this had happened to somebody else, I believe, as somebody else said, that David Amess would be saying the same as the rest of us. Maybe that is a fitting tribute to him as well.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker; this has been one of the loveliest debates that I have ever been privy to in this Chamber. As his family prepares to say goodbye and his body lies in the Crypt just yards away, may we all spare a moment to think about David Amess, and the tragic way in which he died. It was absolutely senseless; it has shocked us all.

As noble Lords have said, we must extend our thanks to Essex Police and the Metropolitan Police for their quick and comprehensive response, and apprehending and charging the alleged culprit. I also bring out for special mention my thanks to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving this amendment, to my noble friend Lady Newlove, whose testimony with her first-hand experience was deeply moving, and to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has shared such experience in this area, particularly in Northern Ireland, and how it has been dealt with day in and day out for decades.

As a Catholic, I understand the importance of extreme unction, absolution and viaticum for those close to death. However, this is not just about Catholics, of course, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said. To answer my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point about who owns a death, we have to strike a sensitive balance. Humanity and sensitivity need to be shown to families and the person who is dying. That is the balance that we need to strike here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, interesting points have been raised by Members around the Chamber. I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris about the need for data; how you collect it and what data you collect is always the issue, but data is essential, obviously. We have some concerns around this amendment regarding its breadth and the inclusion of victims. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, to require someone who is a victim of any crime, from theft of a pet up to violent robbery, to record their sex at birth in order to report that crime and interact with the criminal justice system is, in my view, quite troubling. It may have a significant effect on anybody potentially coming forward if that is an actual requirement of every single victim of every single crime. I think it may well act as an impediment to their coming forward and that is a consideration.

Having said that, there are some concerns around certain types of crime, namely rape and sexual violence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about what the data says, but I think the impact on victims of how these crimes are recorded does vary between police forces in a way that is not helpful either. I did a little research, and I just preface this by saying that the only research I could find was a couple of years old, so if it is out of date, I apologise, but it did point to a problem around this.

“Police forces are recording suspected and convicted rapists as female if they no longer wish to identify with their male birth sex. Six forces”—


I will not name them—

“disclosed under freedom of information laws that if someone is arrested for or convicted of rape, the official record will state the gender they chose to identify themselves as. A further five forces … did not answer the question directly but each said they recorded gender in line with the person’s wishes.”

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what that data would tell us, I do not think it is helpful to have such a stark difference between lots of different forces. That goes to the point that my noble friend Lady Morris made, unless I misunderstood her, about the consistency of data that can be applied in a way that means we can learn from it and make judgments about it. Those are the only comments I would make on this amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Wasserman and others for explaining this amendment, which relates to the recording of sex and gender by the police.

The Government do not currently stipulate how a victim’s or offender’s sex at birth or gender identity must be recorded by the police. It is an operational matter for each individual police force to decide what information to record in cases where a crime is committed, taking into account any relevant national guidance. There are no other instances across government where there is a mandatory requirement to record both a person’s sex as registered at birth as well as their acquired gender, if that is applicable. The Office for Statistics Regulation is clear that it is for each department to decide when and how it collects data, including data on both sex and gender.

We have already stated that we do not plan to require biological sex to be recorded across the criminal justice system in our response to a recent petition calling for the biological sex of violent and sexual offenders to be so recorded. The response cited the practical difficulties in recording biological sex, some of which have been cited this evening, as well as the implications for those with a gender recognition certificate as justification, the implications of which I will touch on later.

I understand that this issue has received media attention, with the media reporting that there have been cases of sexual offences committed by transgender women where these crimes, which are traditionally male crimes, have been recorded as being committed by women. The Daily Mail reported that the Home Office is working with police to develop a new procedure for officers to record the sex of criminals in order to ensure that crime statistics are more accurate.

As noted in much of this reporting, the Home Office has already started work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to promote a standardised approach—a phrase that lots of noble Lords have used—to the recording of all protected characteristics, which is currently at an early stage. Further, the Office for Statistics Regulation has issued draft guidance for the collection of sex and gender data for public bodies. This work should bring greater accuracy and consistency of the recording of sex and gender and allow the police to understand how best to collect it. I think it is through these processes, rather than legislation, that it is appropriate to improve the accuracy of the recording of sex and gender.

There are also a number of legal concerns arising from the amendment. It is unclear why the Government would need to mandate the uniform recording of this information regarding both alleged victims and perpetrators for all offences, and how this would be considered both necessary and proportionate for operational purposes. Accordingly, it could amount to an unlawful interference in someone’s right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The requirement might also breach Article 14 on the basis that it amounted to discrimination where transgender individuals are concerned. It is not clear, due to the scope of the amendment, that such a requirement could be lawfully justified.

I put it to the Committee that legislating so that the police routinely record this type of data is not the solution to the problem of standardising how sex and gender are recorded. Reasonable and appropriate actions are already being taken to address this that do not carry the same potential consequences as mandating it by law. There will be more to be said on this in the coming months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, but I hope that for now I have said enough to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wasserman (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her comments, which were thoughtful and helpful, as ever. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that now, after midnight, I will withdraw my amendment. She need not worry about any more debate.

I recognise very much the problems of collecting this information, which is why I went out of my way to speak at some length about the Home Office counting rules. I happened to be involved with their development when I was at the Home Office. They are very much based on consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, experts, think tanks, academics and so on. As I said, these rules ensure that the collection arrangements are easily amended in the light of practical experience on the ground. I have no doubt that any debate about the collection of such information will get careful consideration by the experts at the Home Office who run the counting rules, by the police, and others.

I still think that it is important to have national criminal information. One of the weaknesses of our system, as we said in an earlier debate on the Bill, is that we have 43 separate forces with 43 chief constables, each deciding how they will collect and maintain crime statistics. This is not the best way to do it. Some noble Lords will no doubt suggest a single police force, as in Scotland. That is not such a good idea, but there is another way of doing it—by Parliament setting clear rules at high level, and the experts then deciding how best to collect the information sensitively, with due respect to human rights and to people’s deepest feelings, ensuring that they take the population with them. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

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

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker, for speaking to these amendments, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who is back in her seat—the timing was pretty good, because we had an hour’s break; in fact, it was an hour and a half by the time we had finished Questions.

Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments, it might be helpful to the Committee if I first outline why we are introducing these new orders and why we think they will make a positive contribution to tackling knife crime, which has risen over the last seven years, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out. I agree with him on the multi-agency approach. He brought up our local government days. Absolutely the most effective initiatives, which have grown over the last few years, are those which take that public health approach, with all agencies working together. On testing, the pilots will be a very good way of assessing whether what we have proposed is effective when put into practice. There are four pilot areas, which I shall go through shortly. I say to the noble Lord that it will be independently evaluated.

The Committee would not disagree that every time someone carries a knife, they risk ruining their life and the lives of others. Knife crime is blighting our communities and the Government are determined to tackle the scourge. I again totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—again, this probably goes back to our local government days—that engagement with communities is vital, because they not only support their young people not being knifed to death but they will support the police in what they are trying to do. We have just talked in the Urgent Question repeat about trust from communities in what the police are doing.

We have committed to putting an extra 20,000 police officers on our streets. We have also committed £176.5 million over the last two years through a serious violence fund to address the drivers of serious violence at the local level and significantly bolster the police response. This includes £70 million to support violence reduction units in 18 areas across the country most affected by serious violence. We have also committed a further £130.5 million to tackle serious violence and homicide in the current financial year.

Stop and search has taken 11,000 knives off the streets and resulted in 74,000 arrests in 2019-20. However, we all know that we have more to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said—I apologise that I keep quoting him—we all want to know what works and what will drive out the scourge of knife crime. Too many criminals who carry knives or other offensive weapons go on to offend again—that is indisputable. We need to send a clear message that if people persist in carrying knives, they can expect to be caught and face a prison sentence.

As I have said, stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on violent crime. As I indicated in an earlier debate, we have already made it easier for forces to use existing powers. Our message is simple: if offenders are vulnerable and want to move away from crime, we will support them, but if they continue to carry knives and weapons over and over again, serious violence reduction orders, or SVROs, help to end that reoffending cycle. They will give the police powers to take a more proactive approach and make it easier to target those already convicted of offences involving knives or offensive weapons, giving them the automatic right to search those offenders and help tackle prolific, high-risk offenders.

SVROs are intended to be used as part of a wider approach to support offenders. We expect that they will provide a credible reason to resist pressure to carry weapons, thus acting as a deterrent and helping to protect vulnerable first-time offenders from being drawn into further crime and exploitation by criminal gangs.

We understand the concerns around disproportionality and the impact of stop and search on our BME communities but, as I said in an earlier response, let us not forget that young black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide than young white people. Young black people are dying, their families are suffering and their communities are being disproportionately impacted. We must do better. We must give the police tools that will enable them to take a more targeted approach, focusing their efforts and resources on those they know carry knives.

As I have said, these orders will be piloted before being rolled out across England and Wales. Clause 141 sets out the detail of this. The pilot will help us build an understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the new orders and, as required by Clause 141, we will lay a report before Parliament on the operation and outcome of the pilot. I hope that this gives the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, some comfort.

I now turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendments 224, 227 and 237 would raise the threshold for the standard of proof required to impose, vary or renew an SVRO from the civil standard, which is the balance of probabilities, to the criminal standard, which is beyond reasonable doubt. Before I go any further, I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan; I forgot to acknowledge that he made a very good speech earlier.

New Section 342A(3) of the Sentencing Code provides that an SVRO can be made if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by the offender in the commission of the offence, or that the offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed. An order can also be given if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by another person in the commission of the offence—the commission of the offence is the crucial point here—or that another person had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed and the offender knew, or ought to have known, that that would be the case.

This means that, when considering any applications for an SVRO, the court should apply the civil standard of proof when determining whether the individual in respect of whom the application is made has committed an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon. This civil standard is not new; it was accepted in your Lordships’ House in the context of domestic abuse protection orders earlier this year, or at the end of last year.

I am aware that there are concerns about this approach. However, the Bill provides that the court may hear evidence from both the offender and the prosecution when considering whether to make an SVRO. It is anticipated that, in most cases, it will be clear beyond reasonable doubt whether the offender used or had with them a knife or offensive weapon in the offence, and the offender may have been convicted of a knife or offensive weapons offence.

However, there may be cases where the fact that an offender used or had with them a knife or offensive weapon cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, we believe that the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities, is appropriate to enable the court to consider whether an SVRO is necessary in respect of an individual, given the aims of the order to protect communities and deter offenders from future offending. The criminal standard of proof will apply in any criminal prosecution for breaching an SVRO. As I said, this approach is in line with other civil orders, such as domestic abuse prevention orders, which we debated at the beginning of the year.

Amendment 225 would restrict the circumstances in which an SVRO may be made. Currently, proposed new Section 342A(3) provides that an SVRO can be made if a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by the offender in the commission of the offence or that the offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed. This allows for circumstances where a bladed article or offensive weapon was not used in the offence, but the offender had a bladed article or knife with them when the offence was committed.

I remind the Committee that for an SVRO to be made a person must be convicted of an offence involving a knife or offensive weapon. So the Sikh or chef, in the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would not generally be convicted of an offensive weapon attack—and that applies to the electrician and his mate. I am sorry; I am trying to read my own writing here.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I have a quick question, because I want to be clear about this point in relation to something the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said earlier. If a Sikh, who is carrying just their religious knife, is in a fight and is convicted of common assault, is the SVRO now available in that context?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is always dangerous to talk about specific cases but, if the knife has not been used in the commission of the offence—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

But it was on their person.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

If the Sikh was going about his business with his knife in his pocket, he would have reasonable excuse. If he then got into a fight and the knife was not used in the commission of the common assault, the knife would be irrelevant to the case. But I must absolutely caveat my comments: the court would decide the facts of the case.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Could I further clarify what the Minister has just said? If the Sikh becomes involved in a fight and does not go for the knife that they are carrying during that offence, the Sikh can still be made subject to an SVRO, because they committed an offence and had a knife with them at the time the offence was committed, even though the weapon was not used.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have just fallen into a trap that I do not like to fall into, which is to take on specific cases. The court would have to determine the facts of the case to decide whether the knife was relevant and, therefore, whether an SVRO could be made.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

This is Committee and it is important to get this clear. My clear understanding of the legislation is that it does not matter whether the knife was used in the commission of the offence; it is simply the fact that the person had a knife with them when they committed the offence which means that not only can that person be made subject to an SVRO but any person convicted with them who did not have a knife can also be made the subject of an SVRO by the court. So, without using specific examples, can the Minister please clarify that I am correct?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I can clarify is that I will not take theoretical cases again. But the court would need to consider whether in the circumstances it is proportionate to make an order. That does not go into the specifics of any given case.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Minister might want to take some advice on this, but I think the relevant piece of legislation in Clause 140 is proposed new Section 342A(3)(b), which says that

“the offender had a bladed article or offensive weapon with them when the offence was committed.”

They do not have to use it; it is just the fact that they are carrying it and have it on them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I backtracked quite a bit to say that the courts would then make the judgment call on whether the SVRO would be made, based on the facts of the case. I am not saying that, theoretically, it could not happen, but the courts may decide otherwise. It would depend on the facts of the case.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Perhaps I may just add that it seems so widely drawn that the first condition, in proposed new subsection (1), is that there has to be an offence. It does not say that there has to be an offence involving violence. So, first there has to be an offence. Then you engage proposed new subsection (3)(b): during the commission of the offence, whatever it might have been, did the person involved carry a knife? If the offence was, say, a driving offence, I am sure that an SVRO would not be applied for or granted, but there is a large area of discretion here. When you take it a little further into proposed new subsection (4), it is simply an offence—the carriage of a knife and the question of “ought to have known”. So the whole thing wanders off into this speculative landscape where evidence does not seem to matter and it is all mental constructions. I am sorry for going on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is no problem at all; this is Committee, where we clarify these issues. But I think it is fair to say that the trigger for the SVRO, essentially, is the conviction.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

An interesting criminal law debate is developing and I cannot resist joining in. I very respectfully suggest to the Minister that this is a situation in which the use of examples, if they are worked up, is very important and would be extremely useful. My view is that she is right about some of this but possibly not all of it, and that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is possibly right about quite a lot of it but wrong about some of it—for example, the relevance of previous convictions, which may be used far more these days than he imagines. Previous convictions are available as evidence of propensity and are frequently used in criminal trials. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that a series of indicative examples should be worked up and put in the Library in advance of Report, because it would make these questions much easier to answer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend—and he is my noble friend because he has come to my rescue time and again. I am not a lawyer and even less of an expert in criminal law.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Perhaps I could just say that those examples should include, if they are right, non-violent offences where a weapon is not used in the commission of the offence in any way, where the person only has the weapon on them, and they have an accomplice who did not have a knife on them but should have known that the person had one concealed on their person when they committed a non-violent offence without using the weapon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will most certainly do that. So this is offences where the knife is not actually deployed and the person with the individual with a knife in their pocket would not have known that the knife was in their pocket. Without getting myself into further trouble, I would say that the courts would take those facts into consideration—but I will elect to write to noble Lords with as many permutations and combinations as I can possibly think of before Report.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

I have no wish to get the noble Baroness into more difficulties, but the problem arises because she said that the court would have to consider the relevance of the carriage of the knife to the offence, and that is quite simply wrong. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness, before any examples are produced, would concede that, and then discuss whether these amendments are not very important in light of the answer. There is the weakness—the lack of the nexus between the carriage of the knife and any offence that is proved.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I need to reflect further on what noble Lords have said. I will try to answer the noble Lord’s question in a letter before we start talking about examples. We are, after all, in Committee, and I am learning, like other noble Lords, as we go along.

Amendments 226, 226A and 226B would remove the provisions that enable a court to issue the SVRO if two or more people commit an offence but not all of them used or were in possession of the weapon—that is slightly going back on what we were discussing. When a knife offence or offensive weapon-related offence is committed, it is not always the case that all the offenders had the weapon in their hands—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out—during the commission of the offence. But if the court is satisfied that a person knew or ought to have known that another person committing the offence had a knife or an offensive weapon during the commission of the offence, and this person committed an offence arising out of the same facts, we think it would be appropriate for an SVRO to be available. Again, I will put the various permutations and combinations to noble Lords in a theoretical way. This would allow SVROs to be made in relation to all the individuals who were involved and were convicted of such an offence, should the court consider an SVRO to be necessary in respect of those individuals.

This provision intends to cover situations such as a robbery or a fight where a weapon was used by one individual, but where other individuals convicted of offences related to the same facts knew, or ought to have known, that a weapon was being used or carried by another person involved in the offence, even if they themselves were not carrying the weapon. This is very similar to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, except that that individual was brandishing the weapon.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am sorry, but that is not what the proposed law says. It does not talk about when there is a fight and somebody uses a weapon, and a person who was with them should have known they had a weapon. What the Bill as drafted says is that anybody who commits any offence—such as, for example, smashing a car window—who has a knife in their pocket can be given an SVRO. It may be that that is what was intended, but it is not what the legislation says.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I am saying, and what I said earlier, is that it will be up to the courts to decide whether it is appropriate, bearing in mind the facts of the case, and whether the court thinks an SVRO in respect of an individual is necessary to protect the public or any particular members of the public in England and Wales.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

First, I want to thank the Minister and do not want her to think any of this is meant to be aggressive or to interfere with what she is doing. Secondly, these hypotheticals are incredibly important to test the provisions; they are not some attempt to be clever and dance on the head of a pin. It is super important to get the criminal law right, and that can only be done, in my view, by testing it against the sorts of scenarios being offered.

The Minister quite rightly says, “We are creating a disposal, and in the end the courts will have to administer it”. None the less, the Government are creating the disposal and setting thresholds for its availability. With respect to her, the Government must have a policy and intention, and there is therefore a valid question about whether it is the Government’s intention in drafting and pursuing this legislation that, for example, any male Sikh, or any Sikh, who carries a ceremonial knife, however small, will always theoretically be subject to this additional exposure to a disposal to which, by definition, people of other faiths will not be subject. I am not saying that to be inflammatory, but we have to get this right. The Minister herself has talked about equality impact assessments, and so on. It may be that this proposal slipped through the net and is worth looking at again before the next stage.

This is not just an issue for the Sikh community but for other people such as chefs or electricians who are carrying knives and are involved in a crime that theoretically is potentially not even violent crime but perhaps minor shoplifting, possession of prohibited drugs or whatever. They are now, suddenly, potentially subject to this disposal. It is not simple enough to assume that when a specific disposal such as this one, with draconian consequences, is made available for sentences it would never be used. The courts might rightly think that the Government’s policy must have been that if you carry a blade or point, regardless of whether you were carrying it illegally in the first place, you take your chances, and that if you get involved in shoplifting or is found in possession of drugs, that is too bad—you now get this additional penalty and it serves you right. That is the signal that we are sending on violent crime. I hope that that is not the intention but if it is, the Committee will need to know.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We have covered a spectrum of different types of offending and behaviour. We must not forget that at the point at which—no pun intended—someone is issued with an SVRO, they will have been convicted by the court of a knife or offensive weapons offence. The court will also, I am sure, take into consideration previous patterns of behaviour. If the Sikh who got involved in a fight and had his knife with him had no previous convictions for weapons offending, that would be quite different from a repeat offender. It would be for the court to consider whether to impose the SVRO. I hope that I have made that clear and that it will become clearer to noble Lords by the examples I will provide.

Of course, we will consider, in the light of the Committee, whether we have got all the permutations and combinations right. That is what noble Lords do best—scrutinising legislation, and I have the benefit of some serious legal players around the Chamber.

I now move on to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, about the disproportionate impact that SVROs might have on some vulnerable groups—primarily women who might be coerced into carrying weapons. I completely empathise with the circumstances in which such women might find themselves. We discussed domestic violence only a few months ago and know the effect that coercive control can have on women. At the heart of what we are doing is committing to preventing offenders of all ages, genders and backgrounds becoming involved in serious violence by developing resilience, supporting positive alternatives and delivering timely interventions.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. My amendment takes out the part that states that a person “ought to have known” that someone else was carrying, rather than that person carrying. That is the bit that is particularly pernicious in terms of the woman that I was talking about.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I completely understand that point it in the context of the previous debate. One of the things that we will be testing as part of the pilot is the impact of SVROs on the individuals subject to them, and how to ensure that vulnerable offenders—because sometimes people are caught up in these things completely unwittingly—are directed to local intervention schemes to help steer them away from crime. But SVROs used as part of a wider crime prevention approach will send a clear message that, if people are vulnerable and want to move away from crime, and in particular if they are being coerced into carrying things, or coerced generally, we will of course support them.

Amendment 228 seeks to increase the requirements for SVROs to be made. It would require that an order can be imposed only if the SVRO is proportionate to one or more of the relevant aims of the order. It is already a requirement for the court to consider the making of the order necessary to protect the public, or any particular member of the public, including the offender, from the risk of harm, and to prevent the offender committing an offence. It would be for the court to decide the seriousness of any offence, based on the individual facts of the case, and to decide whether it is necessary and proportionate for an order to be made in respect of an individual. Any order made will be at the court’s discretion.

An individual convicted of an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon could cause harm to any member of the public, including particular individuals. The provisions in the Bill allow a wide range of considerations to be made, so that an SVRO will have the greatest impact and protect members of the public, including the offender themselves, from the risk of harm.

Amendments 229, 230 and 231 seek to amend the evidentiary requirements for an SVRO to be made. They would provide that the court may consider only evidence led by the prosecution and by the offender and would remove provisions that allow courts to consider evidence that would have been inadmissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted. We think it appropriate that the court can consider a wider range of evidence about the offender that may not have been admissible in the proceedings. This goes in some sense to the heart of what we have just been discussing. For example, in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the offender may have a history of knife carrying that would be relevant to whether an SVRO would be necessary to protect the public.

Amendment 239 would make the guidance to be issued under Clause 140 subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC in its report on the Bill. As I have indicated in response to other amendments, we are considering carefully the arguments put forward by the DPRRC and will also reflect on today’s debate before responding to the committee’s report ahead of the next stage of the Bill.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—through the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—has tabled Amendment 240 to Clause 141, which makes provision for the piloting of SVROs. I talked about this earlier. I can assure noble Lords that we will take the matters set out in Amendment 240 into consideration as we progress the design work for the pilot and agree the terms of the evaluation. That said, the general point is that it is not necessary to include such a list in the Bill. The approach adopted in Clause 141 is consistent, for example, with the piloting provisions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 in respect of knife crime prevention orders.

Working with the four pilot forces our aims are: to monitor and gather data on a number of different measures—including, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the impact of SVROs on serious violence; to build evidence on reoffending and the outcomes for offenders who are subject to SVROs; to understand and learn how we ensure that vulnerable people are directed to local intervention schemes; and to understand community responses to the orders.

I think we can conclude by agreeing on the need to do all we can to tackle the scourge of knife crime, which is wrecking far too many lives. I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords of the case for the new orders as part of our wider work to prevent and reduce serious violence, and that I have reassured the Committee—although not on certain things, on which I will have to write—that many of the issues raised will be considered as part of the piloting of SVROs in advance of any national rollout. I reiterate my commitment to consider further the DPRRC’s recommendation in relation to parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this group, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Coaker.

The Minister asked what works. The centre-right think tank Policy Exchange recently produced a report saying that, in reducing serious violence, the emphasis should be on community policing and not on stop and search. That summarises what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was saying. The Minister, in earlier proceedings in the House this afternoon, talked about how trust in the police had been seriously damaged recently. Despite that, the Government are giving the police more and more powers that are likely to further damage trust in the police.

The Minister talked about communities—particularly black communities—wanting this sort of thing in order to stop their young people dying on the streets. After I left the police, I went to a pupil referral unit, and students from the unit took me to a local council estate where a young mother holding a baby had been stabbed to death. As we looked at the scene, they said to me, “Yes, we want the police to take knives off the street, but we want them to target stop and search at the people who have got the knives.” To do that, and to target stop and search at those people who are carrying knives, the police need community intelligence, and these sorts of provisions are likely to push the community away, rather than encourage people to come forward with information. Do not get me wrong: targeted, intelligence-led stop and search based on community information can be effective in taking weapons off the street, but quite clearly, as I said on Section 60, with suspicionless stop and search, only one in 100 stop and searches results in a weapon being recovered.

The noble Baroness said that these provisions are very similar to domestic violence prevention orders on the balance of probabilities versus reasonable doubt. Throughout the course of that Bill, we persistently said that that was not acceptable, so the noble Baroness should not be surprised that we are saying it about these orders. However, we need to do all we can to reduce serious violence on our streets. The difficulty is where you have provisions such as this that prove to be counterproductive.

We will come back to this at Report—I can guarantee that. But at this stage, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I propose to deal with just one amendment, Amendment 233, which is concerned with the defence of reasonable excuse. I concentrate on that because my noble friend Lord Paddick has covered the ground in this group. But it seems to me—and I agree with what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have said—that this group offends against principles of our criminal law and rides roughshod over them, because the overall purpose of the Bill seems to have taken precedence over any degree of thought being given to the detail of what is actually being done.

Amendment 233 in the names of my noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would permit a reasonable excuse defence to an offence committed where an offender subject to an SVRO tells a constable that they are not subject to such an order. The Liberty briefing, for which we are all very grateful, points out that an offender may have committed the proposed offence of telling the police constable falsely that they are not subject to an order even where they honestly and even reasonably believe that the order—the SVRO—is no longer in force, or where they do not understand the question because English is not their first language, or for any other reason.

Looking at the proposed offences under new Section 342G(1), the reasonable excuse defence is presently available only in respect of offences under (a) or (b) of that subsection. The first is if the offender

“fails without reasonable excuse to do anything the offender is required to do by the order.”

The second is where the offender

“does anything the offender is prohibited from doing by the order.”

But there is no reasonable excuse defence available for any of the other three offences. Under (c), I think “notifies the police” means providing to the police,

“in purported compliance with the order, any information which the offender knows to be false”,

while (d) covers denying the order which is the subject of Amendment 233m which I have addressed, and (e) is where the offender

“intentionally obstructs a constable in the exercise of any power conferred by”

the legislation. None of the last three has a reasonable excuse defence available.

In thinking about this proposed section, one is reminded that reasonable excuses may arise in odd and unpredictable ways. Legislation ought to avoid criminalising any behaviour for which the citizen has a reasonable excuse, because criminalising behaviour in these circumstances brings the law into disrepute. If there is no reasonable excuse, the offence is committed and conviction will follow—but if there is a reasonable excuse, there ought to be no conviction.

We have only to remind ourselves that there may be a reasonable excuse for disobeying police officers’ requirements. Tragically, Sarah Everard was persuaded to enter Wayne Couzens’s car, with awful results, because he purported to have the right to require her to do so. We should be open to the view that automatic obedience to the requirements of a police officer is not always sensible, and that offenders, even though subject to SVROs, might well have reasonable excuses for non-compliance with police officers’ requirements.

I suggest that the Minister and her colleagues ought to think about whether reasonable excuse should not be a defence to all these offences. Initially, they might consider that there would not be many cases where a citizen would have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. But they might also wish to reflect that that does not mean that, in those cases where citizens do have a reasonable excuse, they should be found guilty of a criminal offence. This is an important lacuna in the proposals made here—that reasonable excuse will be no answer to conviction.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has explained, this group of amendments deals with further aspects of the new serious violence reduction order. Amendments 231A and 231B would remove the requirement for an offender subject to an SVRO to notify the police of their home address; any changes to their home address; the address of any other premises at which the offender regularly resides or stays; or the address of any place they decide to live in for a period of one month or more.

We included notification requirements in the legislation in order to help officers to identify those subject to an order in their area. It is a common feature of other offender management regimes, including in relation to sex and terrorism offenders, so we are not breaking any new ground here. We stated in the draft statutory guidance that the police should use the notification stage to engage with the offender and clarify the effects of an SVRO: that is, to explain to the offender in ordinary language the requirements and effects of an SVRO and what offences may be committed if they breach the order. This, along with an up-to-date description, could be used to assist with future identification when conducting a stop and search. It is therefore important that we keep the notification requirement as currently drafted to ensure that officers are able properly to identify those subject to an order.

Amendment 233 would create a defence so that an offender can tell an officer that they are not subject to an SVRO if they have a reasonable excuse to do so. I do not see any circumstances where it would be reasonable for an offender not to tell an officer that they are subject to an SVRO if they are asked. It may be that the noble Lord wants to cover circumstances where an offender subject to an SVRO has a reasonable excuse for carrying a knife. In such circumstances, it would be for the police, and ultimately the courts, to decide whether the reasonable excuse defence was made out in the event that the offender was arrested and then charged with an offence in relation to the possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

232: Clause 140, page 131, line 34, at end insert—
“(9) In this section, “home address”, in relation to the offender, means—(a) the address of the offender’s sole or main residence, or(b) if the offender has no such residence, the address or location of a place where the offender can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the offender may select.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a definition of “home address” for the purposes of the notification requirements which must be included in a serious violence reduction order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his clear outline of the problem at the beginning of the debate. That was really helpful. I support the amendments creating the offences for assaulting a retail worker.

I look at this problem from a completely different perspective. Apart from the four years I was at university, I have spent all my life in really rural settings, so I identify with the weekly trip to the supermarket. We have a village shop which doubles up as the post office, but I cannot walk there because the roads are too narrow so I have to drive. It is a different sort of world. I identify with this from when I was at university in Leeds too; the corner shops at the end of terraces were exactly the same sort of set-up as a rural shop. But they had their problems. CCTV has now appeared in these shops, which was never there before. There was a level of trust, which is slightly eroded when people move into the village and behave in a different way. This sounds like the 1950s, and sometimes it is.

Whether we are talking about cities or villages, there are many small shops still, and a lot of them have post offices which keep them open. We should not forget that, because they serve a lot of people: where I live, a lot of people do not have cars, and older people really prefer going to the small village shop and still collect their pension there. But a single-handed shop with limited security and often no cameras is a danger, and these shop workers are vulnerable to assault, even in areas where you think everybody knows everybody else’s business. Will the Minister tell us, when she sums up, what sort of recommendations or advice are given to such small shops by the local police? Is there any government guidance to ensure that their safety and that of their workers are protected?

I thank the ACS for its really helpful background briefing. The two amendments are really interesting: one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is about the offence of assaulting a retail worker, and the other, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is much the same. Something should come back: whether it comes back from the Government or from amendments tabled by Members, we really need to put a marker down before the Bill finishes on the issue of assaulting shopworkers. It might be quite sensible if those who have added their names to Amendments 263 and 264 could sit down together to craft an amendment that would fit with all the points that were made in this short but really quite informative and well-informed debate, and then bring something back for Report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling their amendments, and for the opportunity that I have had to discuss their amendments with them before today. Both have spoken forcefully on behalf of retail workers, and noble Lords will have witnessed the strength of their convictions and the deep basis of knowledge from which they speak. I cannot let this opportunity go by without paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who has—I could say harangued me for four years—shown such tenacity on this matter that he deserves a mention.

I start by echoing the comments made in the House of Commons by the then Minister for Safeguarding, in showing my support and respect for all those working in the retail sector. As my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston said, they have shown such tireless dedication as public servants, really, providing essential services to the public throughout the pandemic. I totally identify with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about going to the shops being the highlight of the day during the pandemic. It became a daily ritual for our household, certainly.

It is essential that we all feel safe at work, which is why assaults on any worker providing a service to the public is clearly unacceptable. It is really important that where such assaults or abuse occur, the perpetrators are brought to justice. In the Commons, Minister Atkins committed to actively consider this issue and that remains the Government’s position, but as part of that process of consideration I very much wanted to hear and then reflect on the debate today. I welcome the fact that those noble Lords who have contributed today spoke with such clarity and strength of feeling and gave us very good direction.

I want to say a bit more about the current position and the factors that the Government are weighing up as we determine how best to proceed in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked about the gap in the law. Obviously, a wide range of offences already exist covering assaults on any worker, including retail workers, and they include offences such as common assaults. The example that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe gave could encompass grievous bodily harm or, indeed, actual bodily harm, harassment and other public order offences, all of which criminalise threatening or abusive behaviour intended to harass, alarm or distress a person.

Furthermore, the courts have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines, which state that it is an aggravating factor for an offence to be committed against a person who works in the public sector or who is providing a service to the public. This means that any offence that occurs against a victim providing a service to the public, including those working in the retail sector, will be considered by the court as meriting an increased sentence. I have also heard the comments and concerns about the provisions in the Bill that seek to increase custodial sentences—including the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about sentence inflation—and it is crucial that we take into account the impact on our courts and prisons, as he said, when considering whether to increase sentences.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what meetings Ministers had held over the summer with businesses, trade unions and groups representing retailers to discuss this issue. The Home Office has undertaken extensive consultation on the subject of violence and abuse towards retail workers, and discussions on this subject go back several years, as I have previously stated. Similar amendments were tabled to previous Bills such as the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is why the Government committed to a call for evidence on the levels of violence and abuse faced by retail workers.

That response was published in July last year and it increased our understanding of the problems faced by retail workers. A programme of work has been under way through the National Retail Crime Steering Group, which the Minister for Crime and Policing co-chairs with the British Retail Consortium. The steering group brings together the Government, retailers, unions and trade associations, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the police-led National Business Crime Centre to make sure that the response to retail crime is as robust as it can be, as well as ensuring that key crime drivers, including substance misuse, are comprehensively considered. I hope that goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. It has been and continues to be an important forum for discussions on the causes of violence and abuse in the retail sector and for working together to find solutions and provide support to retailers.

The matter of violence and abuse against retail workers has been the focus of the National Retail Crime Steering Group for the past 18 months. The Home Office is leading a programme of work designed as a direct response to the call for evidence and agreed by the steering group and wider retail sector. To date, six task and finish groups have been established to develop practical resources to support retailers and their employees.

Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Select Committee conducted an inquiry into violence and abuse towards retail workers. In response, retailers, unions and trade associations put forward evidence about their experiences of violence within the sector. The Select Committee recommended that the Government consult on the scope of a new offence, recognising the particular pressure on those in occupations where they are asked to enforce the law, and taking into account the provisions of the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into force in August.

As I have set out, the Government have engaged extensively with the retail sector and the police. In response to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, the police have recruited 11,000 of the targeted 20,000 increase to their number. The government response to the HASC inquiry makes clear the Government’s commitment to address this issue and to take into account the legislation in Scotland.

I assure noble Lords that the Government are continuing to consider whether changes, including legislative changes, are needed and will reflect carefully on the debate today. On the basis of that very firm undertaking that the Government are considering as a matter of urgency how best to balance those many issues, I hope the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am an optimistic person by nature and I thought that there were grounds for optimism in the way in which the Minister talked about weighing up the options and looking at the various ways forward, including—and this was as a really important remark that noble Lords may have heard—“legislative change”. That is the key thing. A number of comments were made by various noble Lords. The Minister will have heard them. In the interests of time, I shall leave it there, but we will look forward to the Government coming forward with something on Report, or us tabling our own amendments. In thanking noble Lords for their support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer also added his name to this amendment. We clearly support the amendments. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who I understand campaigned for decades on this issue. I thought it was quite moving, if I may use that word, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, saying he earnestly hoped that he was coming towards the end of his campaign. I hope he is right and that the Minister may be able to give him some comfort in that respect. Everybody who has contributed to the debate thinks this is a thoroughly appropriate amendment and, even though it has been a very truncated debate, the passion and the sense of finality have come through, and I very much hope that the Minister will give a suitable response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is about three minutes to the witching hour and I am absolutely delighted to be able to respond on behalf of the Government to these amendments. I and the Government are committed to enabling those with historical convictions for decriminalised homosexual conduct to apply to have their convictions disregarded. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, Professor Paul Johnson and my noble friend Lord Lexden, we felt that this was the neatest way to do it, as opposed to any other way. We have been actively exploring whether further offences can be brought within the scope of the scheme, to enable more people, both civilians and ex-service personnel, to benefit from it.

I really want at this point to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lexden and to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who is my noble friend, and to Professor Paul Johnson at the University of York for his expertise on this issue. I am very grateful for the conversations we have had on these amendments and similar amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lords for reiterating their commitment during Committee to work with the Home Office and the MoD on the best way forward for achieving our joint desire to redress this historic injustice.

We accept that the current scheme may be too narrow, as it is essentially confined to convictions for the now-repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men, but, as noble Lords have indicated, other now-repealed offences were also used to unfairly target gay men and women simply because of their sexuality. In further righting these historic wrongs, we need to ensure that any disregards in respect of additional offences meet the established legal criteria to ensure that necessary safeguards are upheld—this is something we have agreed and that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. has outlined tonight. The disregard scheme was deliberately and carefully designed in a way that ensures that the Home Office does not inadvertently disregard convictions or cautions for behaviours which are still illegal today or which involved other illegal behaviours, such as underage or non-consensual sex or sexual activity in a public toilet, which is still an offence under Section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I express our gratitude to the emergency services, which had to deal and are still dealing with this awful incident and its aftermath, whether that incident be terrorism-related or not. I also pay tribute to the bravery and actions of David Perry, the driver of the taxi, and express the hope that his recovery proves to be full and complete. We have to be ever vigilant and proactive in combating and thwarting abhorrent acts of this kind.

I have just two questions. First, the Government have had a report on dealing with so-called lone actors. What are the Government doing with that report? We have called for a judge-led review. Secondly, in the Commons yesterday, Conor McGinn MP referred to a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee

“that included recommendations on the use of and construction of such devices—namely, regulation around the ingredients or chemicals used to make them.”

He asked:

“Why have none of those recommendations been implemented after four years?”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/21; col. 459.]


There was no answer from the Government yesterday. Twenty-four hours later, can the Government now give an answer to that question?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions, and I join him in paying tribute to our emergency services, who acted so quickly to try to preserve life at the scene of the attack, and to the taxi driver, who really was a hero in what must have been an extremely frightening situation. We wish him and his family well. With regard to the first question about lone actors, clearly we get information from all sorts of sources. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that the nature of terrorism is changing, and we have seen a number of lone-actor attacks in the past few years. I cannot comment on this attack further because clearly it is a live and very new investigation. The facts of the case will come out as the investigation continues, but I know that the police made a statement today. I will get back to him on the report he referred to if I can. I am not sure what more I can say about it today.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the caution that the noble Baroness has expressed about the incident itself; it did not seem to stop the Home Secretary reportedly saying that

“The case in Liverpool was a complete reflection of how dysfunctional, how broken, the system has been in the past”.


Despite that, I also express my thanks to the police, the security services and the taxi driver. Does the Minister agree that so-called lone-wolf or lone-actor attacks are some of the most difficult to prevent, whatever motivates them; and that, while the police and the security services do an outstanding job, they cannot be successful without the help and support of people from every community? What are the Government doing to build trust and confidence with communities where this is lacking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord that these things are hard to predict and hard to deal with when they happen. I have seen a couple of comments, particularly from BAME communities in Liverpool, saying that they have faced hate incidences in the last couple of days, and we have seen before that, when an attack happens, quite often it is women who bear the brunt of the hatred and the name-calling. When I was Minister for Counterextremism, I remember going to many different communities, such as Muslim communities and Polish communities after Brexit, trying to provide reassurance. The police have been fantastic on the back of some of the attacks in reassuring local communities.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I too commend the work of the first responders and others who did so much at the scene. It now transpires that the perpetrator was finally refused asylum in 2017, and that was the last time his case appeared before a court. Why did the Home Office not remove him from the United Kingdom between 2017 and 2021? Is it not outrageous that the Home Secretary is trying to blame anyone but the Home Office for him being still in this country?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord that the chap should not be in the country, but in many instances people will frustrate removal processes by putting forward new claims. When we consider the borders Bill, one thing that we have to ensure is that, when people are refused asylum, they are sent back to the country from which they came.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, does the Minister think that perhaps the public deserve to know how many other failed asylum seekers are still in this country and waiting to be removed? This is very worrying for the public and for all of us here, I hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a concern. That is the reason why the Home Secretary is trying to construct a new legislative framework to make sure that asylum claims are granted or, if they are not, that people are sent back as quickly as possible.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, we all support the enormous bravery of the taxi driver and salute him. There is apparently some crowd funding going on of dubious authenticity. I do not ask my noble friend to comment on that, but should it not be automatic that anybody who foils a terrorist outrage of this sort is rewarded by the Government and that any material loss suffered, such as the loss of the man’s taxicab, is dealt with on an official basis?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not know. I agree with the principle of what my noble friend says—it is pure humanity—but I do not know the details of what is going on in order to help the taxi driver to rebuild his life. I have seen things in the press this morning, but I could not comment on them because I do not know if they are correct. But that man is a hero.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Rosser asked about this report about the constituent parts of a homemade bomb. From my experience in the construction industry long ago, some of those bits and pieces are easily obtainable in the construction and agricultural industries. Could the Minister make sure that a copy of this report is put in the Library and sent to noble Lords who have spoken? It seems very important that there should be some control over these materials.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is right. Certain parts of what could be used to make a bomb are now controlled under Home Office licence, as he will know. If I can, I will of course put a copy of the report in the Library.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend has said that asylum seekers look for additional reasons as to why they should not be removed from this country. Do those reasons include conversion to Christianity?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am afraid to say to my noble friend that they do. Noble Lords will remember the Reading attack, which was one such case. In fact, the Reverend Mohammad Eghtedarian raised concerns about asylum seekers cynically posing as Christians way back in 2016, as did the Right Reverend Peter Wilcox, admitting that people had mixed motives for conversion to Christianity. People wanting to frustrate the system will use a range of different reasons to do so. What is sad about this is that it stops some of the more genuine asylum claimants coming to this country.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords have mentioned trust and confidence and reassuring the community. On reassuring the whole community of the United Kingdom, can there be a little less concern about specific communities and more open debate and discussion about the threat of Islamist extremism? People are nervous that they will be accused of being unfair to Muslim communities when actually many Muslims are worried about Islamist extremism. We need more open debate, because there is a feeling that we are not able to have that discussion. After the terrible murder of David Amess and all the things that we have faced, we need that to be openly discussed in this country, among all of us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. I have said so many times at this Dispatch Box that the vast majority of people who are Muslim and who live in this country are law-abiding, share our values and contribute to society. We have just celebrated their role in helping us in the First World War. We talked about free speech yesterday or the day before; I totally agree that, in these discussions, there should be respect for free speech.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for the Urgent Question has now elapsed. We will take a moment to let people who do not want to be here for the next piece of business escape from the Chamber—[Interruption.]—accompanied by music. If only all the times I stood up I was accompanied by a jaunty tune, but unfortunately that cannot be so.

Stop and Search Powers

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Home Office will publish data on the use of stop and search powers for the year up to April 2021.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, as announced on GOV.UK on 25 October this year, data on the use of stop and search powers for the year to April 2021 will be published tomorrow.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for that. She, like others, will have read newspaper reports just last week conveying suspicions that the data had been suppressed because the police Bill is going through Parliament. Similarly, there are concerns about the Government’s consultation on the Nationality and Borders Bill, the results of which have not yet been published. Will the Minister publish that data as well, certainly before that Bill comes before your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to correct some of the inaccurate claims. The first was that the delay was due to a record level of data, but that was a misrepresentation by journalists; actually, the Home Office needed additional time to quality assure more granular record-level data. Secondly, the decision for delaying the statistics for the PCSC Bill was made by the head of profession, in line with the code of practice for statistics, and was announced at the earliest possible point on GOV.UK.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness has said, but is she aware how this delay looks? On last year’s figures, black people were 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people when the police have the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill already contains new provisions to allow even more stop and search without suspicion and, on Monday, the Government laid 18 pages of new amendments to the Bill for debate next week, further extending the ability of the police to stop and search people without any reason to think the person they are searching has anything on them. What equalities impact assessment has been made of these new powers and what was the result?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

An equalities impact assessment has been done on the Bill, as is done on every Bill, as the noble Lord knows. On how this looks, I have explained the process for producing the statistics and I hope that is satisfactory for the noble Lord. I was disappointed that this Question was not being asked tomorrow, so that we could debate it more fully, with the statistics before us.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I wonder if I can press the Minister to comment on the figure just given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which is in the public domain—that black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Can she comment on this in the light of the case reported in the Guardian of a 14 year-old black schoolboy, who claims to have been stopped and searched 30 times in the last two years, including on one occasion when he left his home to put out rubbish? Does the Minister agree that stop and search is often a crude tactic, that there is a well-founded perception that it is based on racial stereotyping and that once a young person—a child, in fact—has become a target, they tend to remain one?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has often quoted that statistic and he is absolutely not wrong.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am sorry, my Lords; he is right. It has been a very long week and it is still Wednesday.

The noble Lord is absolutely right on that, but of course a young black man is 24 times more likely to be a victim of homicide than a young white person, so the two statistics need to be looked at together. It is true that no one should be stopped and searched based on their ethnicity. The police engage with communities daily and the Government have to abide by codes of practice, and now use body-worn video, to ensure that what they are doing is reasonable and proportionate, in the pursuit of tackling crime.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

In tabling at this stage a new set of amendments on the issue of stop and search without suspicion, the Government have stampeded through all our protocols and processes. I have never heard of that happening and I think the noble Baroness probably has not either. Can she explain why this is okay, when we have already passed Second Reading and have nearly passed Committee? Why do the Government think this is all right? Could the Minister please answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which was specifically about an impact assessment on the new stop and search amendments?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I say, the impact assessment is done on the Bill and it will include the amendments that we propose. Amendments to legislation are often put forward relatively late in the day. In Committee and then on Report, there will be plenty of time to scrutinise them. They are in response to violent crime increasing and the Government’s real desire to tackle it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The really important point is how we maintain public confidence in the use of stop and search, which is one of the most controversial of police powers. The Government intend to extend that power to a wider range of situations, including when without reasonable suspicion. The publication of the statistics tomorrow will allow us analysis. How are the Minister and the Government going to use those statistics to inform the public and thereby keep public confidence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord goes to the nub of the problem. Certainly, in light of the case of Sarah Everard, trust in the police has to be regained and rebuilt, because we must have trust in those people, the vast majority of whom are there to keep us safe. The police must be held to the highest standards, of course, which is also crucial to public trust in them.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, the question around stop and search has been going on for decades now, and I do not think we have improved how the police conduct themselves around the black community. The scrutiny that has been taking place seems not to be working. We have listened to noble Lords bring the same subject up time and again, as have I. The Minister talks about the report that is going to be out tomorrow. Why has it taken so long for the report to come out since April? We have not been given much time for scrutiny. We have had so many reports of police misbehaviour within public office—she just mentioned Sarah Everard. When are we going to get to the point when we stop talking about stop and search and the effect it has on the black community?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and all the work she has done. Despite the fact that we might have different views on how to go about it, I think we both seek the same ends: trust from communities in the police; and making sure that more black lives are saved through reducing the amount of knife crime and making our streets safer for everyone, including young black men. That is at the heart of the Bill, and the collection of some of the data will help us towards this end—to see whether our policies are working and whether the pilots, when they are rolled out, are more effective than we have been at reducing the number of knife crimes.

UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Foreign Workers

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Article 399(5) of the United Kingdom–European Union Trade and Co-operation Agreement; and what steps they are taking in respect of the regulation of dues and charges payable by foreign workers or their employers.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, Article 399(5) obliges parties to effectively implement provisions of the Council of Europe Social Charter that they have accepted. It does not impact their ability to choose or amend which provisions they accept. Article 18(2) of the charter relates to simplifying, reducing or abolishing fees for workers or their employers. The UK has denounced this provision. From February 2022, charges for work visas payable by all foreign workers and their employers will be harmonised.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, on 12 July the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, giving notice that with effect from 26 February 2022 the UK would denounce Article 18(2) of the European Social Charter 1961, which it had ratified 59 years earlier. That provision committed the contracting parties to simplify existing formalities and to reduce or abolish chancery dues and other charges payable by foreign workers or their employers. Deratification of that obligation may not be sensible in view of our shortage of lorry drivers but, more importantly, how can it be lawful? Perhaps the Minister will say that the Government overlooked the provisions of Article 399(5) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in attempting to denounce the provisions of the charter that it had already accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, TCA Article 399 only obliges the UK to implement provisions of the charter that the UK accepts. It does not prevent the UK from accepting further provisions or ratifying different versions of the charter in the future, nor does it prevent the UK from not accepting or disapplying provisions. The 1961 charter specifically allows states to disapply individual provisions of the charter and the UK may choose which provisions of the 1961 charter we accept at any given time. The TCA does not affect this position.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My noble friend is right in stating the extent of Article 399, but it is quite a wide extent, because obviously it deals with the implementation of all the ILO conventions that have been ratified, together of course with the provisions of the European Social Charter, which we have agreed to accept, as she says. Can my noble friend update us on the overall progress in a wider sense towards completing implementation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the UK Government amended the immigration fee regulations in September to give effect to the change, as my noble friend knows. As I previously explained to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, this is nothing to do with the UK-EU relationship. Our obligations on this matter relate to the implementation of the Council of Europe treaty and do not arise from the UK’s former relationship with the EU or from the TCA.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am conscious that this Question follows one that attracted remarks about the sanctity of a deal done in 1999, but touches on a deal done rather more recently. I ask the Minister how it can make sense for two parties to say that they will honour and implement commitments made under the European Social Charter, but subsequently say that it is perfectly permissible under that deal to disapply and renounce them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I think I explained our obligations to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. We continue to place great value on the role of the Council of Europe in advancing work on human rights, democracy and the rule of law across Europe. It has been and will continue to be important to the UK’s human rights and foreign policy agenda.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the new Justice Secretary is on record for calling the Council of Europe’s convention on human rights “feckless” and “undemocratic”. Now the Government have signalled that they wish to dilute the commitments under the Council of Europe’s Social Charter. Is this part of an agenda to seek trade agreements with countries that do not adhere to all eight of the ILO conventions and to the Social Charter? Will the Minister state clearly whether we will have stronger or lesser labour rights as a result of these moves?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we will have an immigration system in which, wherever in the world you come from, there will be fairness. We are not considering withdrawing from the charter and I have explained about the human rights aspect. The CESC allows us to denounce all the charter or specific provisions. There is a huge list of countries, so we would not be alone in not implementing Article 18(2).

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the TCA is disappointingly light on support for the services sector, despite services contributing the overwhelming majority of UK economic activity. Many different sectors are experiencing a rapidly increasing vacancy rate, with hospitality facing particular challenges filling roles, due to the costs and complexities of new arrangements. We were promised that our new relationship with the EU would bring less red tape and bureaucracy rather than more, so what is going wrong?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I could tell the noble Baroness what is going right. We will have a system that is fair for the whole world, as people who have the skills and can contribute to our economy will be able to make their life and work in the UK. I accept her point about certain sectors facing shortages at the moment and the Government have remedied this.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly respect the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and do not want to comment on the legality of this, but could my noble friend confirm that the effect of reversing the Government’s policy would be to make it easier and cheaper to import cheap labour from abroad? Would the Opposition Benches not be more likely to make the Labour Party electable again if they were to seek to implement Gordon Brown’s cry to train people, so that we have British workers doing British jobs, rather than simply making it easier to import cheap labour from Europe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I totally agree with my noble friend and have said on many occasions that the days when we could import cheap labour from the EU or anywhere else are gone. Our immigration system will be based on the skills that people bring to bear and there will be certain thresholds on incomes.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, is not present, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is some confusion arising from statements made by the Home Secretary about our adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. Earlier, I think she said that the Government were still adhering to it. Will she confirm that there is no intention in any way to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will not add to what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but our departure from the European Union will not diminish the UK’s engagement with the Council of Europe. We are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and to improving the effectiveness of its court. We are a leading player, a founder member and one of the five major financial contributors, having given €34.2 million this year. We use the Council of Europe to hold member states to their human rights obligations and deliver messages to them, in public and in private.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that foreign workers or their employers coming to fill vacancies as lorry drivers, forklift truck drivers, nannies or au pairs have to pay for their visa? Is that not proving to be a barrier to them coming to the UK, and will this be reviewed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not agree with my noble friend. We do not have any shortage of people who want to come here. We do have shortages in certain sectors due to supply chain issues and we are remedying that.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.

Sarah Everard: Home Office Inquiry

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary, in consultation with the chair, determines that if the inquiry cannot fulfil its terms of reference on a non-statutory footing, it can be converted to a statutory basis.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, just yesterday we read that the Centre for Women’s Justice is proposing to judicially review the Home Office on this matter, complaining that correspondence with that department has been substantively unanswered from the middle of last month. Does the Minister not agree that the breadth of concern, the depth and importance of the problem, the need for independence to be seen and done and the need, unfortunately, for powers to compel co-operation, all point to every rational criterion for a full Lawrence-style statutory inquiry having already been met?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the duty to co-operate is already in place. It has been in place since February 2020. Regarding the Centre for Women’s Justice, we have not ignored the letter. We have been focused on identifying a chair so that the details of the inquiry’s scope and how it will operate can be confirmed as quickly as possible. The inquiry can then start addressing our concerns, those of the public and those of organisations such as the Centre for Women’s Justice. We will respond to them as soon as possible.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Macpherson report has been quoted many a time in this House because it stands for many changes in the legal system and beyond. In the case of Sarah Everard, many women up and down the country are demanding a judge-led inquiry where witnesses can be called to give evidence. I know how important it is to have a judge-led inquiry. As in the Stephen Lawrence case, the truth must come out, so will Her Majesty’s Government support a public inquiry into the Sarah Everard case?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that the truth must come out—both at pace and conducted in a way that would satisfy the family. As I have said, if the non-statutory inquiry cannot meet its commitments, it can be converted to a statutory inquiry.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

The Minister must be aware of the deep public concern following the Sarah Everard case. Does she not agree that the fiercely independent Macpherson inquiry and report into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence went a long way towards restoring the trust of the black—and wider—community in policing? Can the Minister suggest any reason why a similar, judge-led inquiry with similar powers, now under the 2005 Act rather than the Police Act 1996, would not be the obvious best way of examining predatory police culture in certain quarters and restoring the trust of young women in this country in our police force, which is surely a vital consideration today?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think the House agrees that trust and confidence in the police must be restored. We wish this inquiry to proceed at pace and to get to the nub of the various issues that it will look into. If the Home Secretary is not satisfied that a non-statutory inquiry is fulfilling those commitments, she can convert it to a statutory inquiry, but I must say that I think the whole House seeks the same end from this inquiry.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, on a slightly separate, but related, matter, what are the implications of the Sarah Everard inquiry for the Daniel Morgan inquiry, which reported in June, described the Met as institutionally corrupt and found numerous failings? Some work has already begun but, given the potential for overlap here and the Morgan family’s long wait for justice, will the Government consider including the delivery of the panel’s recommendations in their cross-government task force?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that there is inevitable overlap here. HMICFRS is already inspecting the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to vetting and countercorruption, at the Home Secretary’s request, and findings from this will feed into the broader inspection that she has asked HMICFRS to undertake across all forces. There is work ongoing in the Metropolitan Police Service and in the Home Office to respond to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel recommendations, and the Home Secretary has already committed to provide an update in due course. Of course, any relevant evidence from this work can then be considered by part 2 of the independent inquiry, which will look more broadly at standards in policing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We have made it clear that there must be a full statutory inquiry. The Government say that a statutory inquiry is too slow, yet the Home Office review of the Daniel Morgan case, which has already been referred to, took years, precisely because its work was made more difficult by the fact that the panel was not established under the Inquiries Act 2005, with its powers of compulsion. The evidence also indicates that the public spotlight of a statutory inquiry, and what it reveals during the hearings, promotes action while the inquiry is in progress and makes it harder for the final recommendations to be ignored or watered down, which is at least as important as any issue over the length of time the inquiry takes. Why do the Government continue to resist a full statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, in which the public can have full trust and confidence?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said, given the need to provide assurance as swiftly as possible, this will be established as a non-statutory inquiry because we want to get to the stage where conclusions are reached and changes are recommended quickly. This cannot be an inquiry that takes years to get to that stage. A non-statutory inquiry allows for greater flexibility, can be tailored to the issues and is likely to be faster, but we are able to turn it into a statutory inquiry if need be.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that the truth must come out at pace, but the Macpherson inquiry—a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act—took 20 months and the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel took eight years, mainly because the panel did not have powers of compulsion. What makes the Government think that the police have changed, when Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary only a few weeks ago described a “culture of colleague protection” in the police service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that at the time there was not that duty to co-operate. The various things the noble Lord mentions will all be looked at in the course of the inquiry. He is absolutely right that some of the culture and practices will be interrogated deeply to see whether any changes are needed.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, having served on your Lordships’ Select Committee examining public inquiries legislation, I am still baffled as to why the Government are reluctant to announce having a statutory inquiry now. Why the prevarication? Surely when there is great public disquiet, particularly as to the safety of women, the Government’s preference should be for a statutory inquiry. No one, particularly the police at the highest level, should be able to avoid giving evidence on oath if the powers are there to compel the giving of such evidence.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I have said, there is the duty to co-operate. That has been in place since last year. I take this opportunity, given that the noble and learned Lord has served under every Prime Minister from Wilson to Blair, to wish him a very happy 90th birthday for last week.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I might have the answer why the Government do not want to make it a statutory inquiry: since the inquiry can compel police officers and other witnesses to come forward and tell the truth, what comes out might be extremely embarrassing for not only the police force but the Home Office. Could it be that the Government want to protect those organisations rather than hear the truth?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government wanted to protect the organisations, we would not be calling an inquiry. We absolutely want to get to the bottom of this for every woman and girl in this country, or any mother or daughter, who feels so keenly what happened to Sarah Everard.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.