Police Accountability

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who brings her experience to this debate. We both spent time in Northern Ireland some time ago, when I was a Minister and she was the police ombudsperson responsible for those areas. I welcome her welcome for the anonymity clause; it is vital that it be put in place. The decision was taken in this court case not by me, this House or the Government, but by a judge at that time. There is no criticism of that; it was entirely their decision to make. However, we have reflected on that and determined that anonymity in this case will prevent the type of difficulty and challenges that Officer Blake has had post acquittal, even though he was acquitted. That is a really important issue.

The noble Baroness mentioned forensic investigations. Self-evidently, these matters are beyond my remit, but it is important that the case presented includes all the information. If it takes time to bring forensic information forward, so be it, and we need to factor that in as part of our review. In Budget week, I cannot comment too much on funding for the IOPC, but I am sure we will revisit that in due course. If the noble Baroness wishes to question that post-Wednesday, we can discuss then the adequacy or otherwise of the budget for the IOPC.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Statement and everything the Minister has said. However, he will be aware of my report of the harassment of the heavy haulage industry by West Midlands Police. As I stated in that report, I have personally observed West Midlands Police officers harass drivers of a highly respected heavy haulage company. Ministers keep telling me that this is an operational matter for the police. How egregious and widespread does this police harassment have to be before Ministers will do something about it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his welcome for the Statement. On the West Midlands Police, he will know that there are mechanisms in place to make reports to tackle any poor behaviour. Most police officers follow a code that is appropriate and proper, and they can be held to account. I am not aware of the case, having been in post for just four months, but if there are areas of concern, the noble Earl should follow the mechanisms of complaint. If he is unhappy with that, he can seek redress in other ways.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I cannot. I have not spoken to him.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, it is no secret that I am not very happy with my own party at the moment. Is the Minister aware that I strongly support the policy he has outlined? The fact is that, for instance, every female asylum seeker from Afghanistan is genuine: they have a very good case. But, in answer to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, once the first 50 or so asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda, is it not the case that there will be no further people risking their lives coming across the channel on small boats, because it will be pointless?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I certainly hope so. This gives me an opportunity to remind the House that part of the reason we are discussing migration on such a regular basis is that this country has been generous, as we have discussed before. There are BNO passport holders, Ukrainian visas, and ARAP in Afghanistan, as my noble friend has alluded to. I think it is well worth restating that for the record.

Firearms Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, before I say anything substantive on the Bill, I would like to declare my interests—or non-interests. I own no firearms under either the Firearms Act or a firearms certificate and none that is exempt, and I have no intention of acquiring any. However, I own my grandfather’s .455 Webley service revolver as it is an historical item. I had it deactivated around 1997 to avoid any possibility of it causing harm to anyone and to avoid the need for me to hold a firearms certificate.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Colgrain on his extremely skilful and comprehensive introduction to his Bill. To use a cliché, what is there not to like about the Bill?

Deactivated firearms are not relevant to the Bill but this is a good opportunity to raise the issue. Several years ago, we were required to change the law on deactivated firearms by an EU directive that did two things. First, it required records to be kept of transfers of certain deactivated firearms, which requires the Home Office to keep records and employ an official whose sole function is to keep these completely unnecessary records. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give some indication, either now or in writing, of whether he intends to use the powers in the REUL Bill to relax the requirement around notifying these transfers; this would avoid the need to have an official in the Home Office keeping these records, which are of no use.

Secondly, the directive required us to prohibit the sale or transfer of what were termed defectively deactivated firearms; these are what we call early deactivated firearms and would include my grandfather’s .455 Webley. Some may worry about reactivation but an old deactivated firearm can, in certain cases, be worth more than a real firearm. It is not worth messing around with an old firearm like my grandfather’s because it is simply an uneconomical proposition; it is cheaper just to buy an illegal one off the black market. I cannot sell or transfer my grandfather’s .455 Webley to anyone because it is illegal to do so but there is absolutely no problem around me owning it. Of course, I have no intention of transferring it to anyone; it will be an insignificant part of my estate when I die. However, I am aware that defectively deactivated firearms—early deacts—are being sold or transferred privately. If it is okay for me to own and keep owning a defectively deactivated firearm, why is it not okay to sell or transfer one?

We have an undesirable situation here, arising from an EU directive. We have left the EU. We do not need to comply with this useless directive. In due course, we will have to repeal both provisions—that is, the provision on keeping records of certain transfers and the provision on preventing people selling or transferring deactivated firearms. Currently, we are creating criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

There has been media comment about firearms being made by 3D printing. I know that Home Office officials are aware of this, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that the current legislation adequately deals with the problem and that there have been successful prosecutions? I understand that officials are keeping a close eye on the situation but, at the moment, the technology of 3D printing is not quite good enough to make a really effective firearm; you still need to machine steel.

I do not intend to return to any of these issues at later stages of the Bill. I hope that, if he cannot respond to me now, my noble friend the Minister will reply to me in writing. I also hope that, in due course, my noble friend Lord Colgrain will have the order of commitment for this Bill discharged so that we can just get on with it.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise in support of the Bill. Like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, this is a piece of legislation that will pretty obviously improve our weapons controls. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, on his customary precise and acute advocacy.

One recurrent concern that I have developed in recent years is that our legislation is reactive far too often. We scrabble to catch up with societal shifts outside this place and pass laws that are no sooner promulgated than they are eclipsed by rapid developments in technology or the attempts of those who are incentivised to find legal loopholes. It is in that state of mind that I listened carefully to the noble Earl’s contribution; I am glad that he raised the issue of 3D-printed weapons. Last year, there was a substantial amount of reporting on the growing threat of such weapons on our streets. I distinctly remember the National Crime Agency publicly stating—I think I quote it accurately—that the current generation of 3D-printed weapons are “credible and viable” compared with earlier versions and that, although they are often single-shot weapons, they are lethal. It seems possible that this issue will need to be returned to at some point in the future because, although I am pleased to hear that the relevant parts of our regulatory authorities are watching this carefully, we will soon need to do more than just watch it.

During my time as Secretary of State for Defence, I grew extremely familiar with Clemenceau’s axiom that generals always prepare to fight the last war. It strikes me that, in our attempts to deal with very serious problems, we sometimes have a tendency to do that too. However, the Bill is not one of those occasions for this reason, which is one of the reasons why I commend it to your Lordships’ House: it seeks to close a loophole in Section 11(4) of the Firearms Act but as part of an incremental process of improving our firearms laws and in response to concerns raised by law enforcement in the firearms safety consultation. I do not want to go back to 3D printing but I hope that 3D-printed weapons will be a significant part of that review.

While the loophole addressed by this Bill talks of “miniature rifles”, the fact remains that these are potentially deadly weapons. It is right that the operators of miniature rifle ranges should be subject to police suitability checks and that the definition of “miniature rifles” should be clarified to ensure that no one should be allowing others to have access to deadly weapons unless they themselves hold an appropriate licence.

Noble Lords may recall a disturbing image that emerged from a Scottish shooting event at Eskdalemuir a couple of years ago. It showed participants shooting at targets through a hatch that was daubed with misogynistic slogans. It is an unfortunate truth that misogyny and guns very often go together. I remember, when I was in America, going to an open sale of guns. There is an entirely different culture—in Florida, in this case—from the one we live in. The amount of misogyny that goes on the T-shirts of the people who are buying the guns was really disturbing. I do not wish to stray further into that territory, because it is well outside the scope of this Bill, but this fact should give us pause to reflect on wider regulation of firearms.

Noble Lords will recall the tragic events in Plymouth in 2021, where a shooter killed five women, including his own mother. The investigation found that the shotgun was legally owned and that the perpetrator had subscribed to incel content and uploaded his own material to incel forums. In an inquest earlier this year, the co-ordinator for firearms licensing on the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that if the mandatory checks had been properly conducted, they should have revealed that his firearms licence

“should never have been issued”.

While thinking about that appalling case, I note that there has been a surge in the number of temporary permits for firearms as a direct consequence of increasing backlogs in the system.

I make my next point not from a partisan perspective but as a question of safety. Can the Minister describe how the decision-making process in granting a temporary permit, as opposed to a regular permit, differs? If there is a difference in the rigour of background checks that are required, it may be that we need to operate on the presumption of refusal of them, save where there is a demonstrable need in terms of work—for instance, in the agricultural sector. In addition, I understand that the Government have committed to consulting on the question of application fees for firearms licences. Presently, very often they do not cover even half the cost of processing the applications. At a time when the public finances are, to put it lightly, rather overstretched, that would be a very welcome development. Alongside the measures contained in the first clause of this Bill, I also welcome Clause 2, which introduces a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture and provides clear definitions and sentences.

In closing, I make the point that this Bill is not an attack on shooting as a sport. Thanks to careful drafting, Clause 2 will not criminalise those who already possess ammunition or component parts of it and Clause 1 merely requires the owners and operators of rifle ranges to possess a firearms licence and to restrict themselves either to lower-powered air weapons or to .22 rim-fire rifles. These are hardly insuperable barriers to operating such a facility. This Bill is a valuable contribution to our firearms regulatory regime, and this debate is a welcome opportunity to draw the Minister’s attention to some other issues. I shall support this Bill as it moves through your Lordships’ House.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, but it is already a very serious offence to manufacture a pressure-bearing component of a firearm. We have the legislative framework and officials are looking at it very closely.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I support all three amendments in this group and particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for two reasons. First, it gives me a rare and particular pleasure to say that I strongly support an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, among others. His dedication has been remarkable throughout these debates, and this is the first time I have agreed with what he has said.

Secondly, there is just one element missing from the powerful case for this amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is partly filled by the remarkable speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and it is about reputation. The noble Lord said that we have become a laughing stock worldwide but, in America and large parts of continental Europe, it is worse than that. People are not laughing; they think it is beyond a joke. I strongly recommend this amendment to the Minister.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lord, I strongly support the basic thrust of Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I do so having regard to the negative effects of the system of tier 1 visas, both in our own country and overseas. The first undesirable effect of this dirty money is on the economy of London; in particular, the cost of housing being pushed up to unaffordable levels by foreign so-called businessmen seeking secure investments, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. My noble friend Lord Faulks identified a lack of progress by the Government in this area.

I accept that there may be some business opportunities in meeting the demand and providing both professional and artisan services to tier 1 investors. Personally, I would not want to earn my living from dirty money, in effect stolen from people of overseas countries. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, explained this with his usual skill. Not only do some of these tier 1 investors illegally suck money and assets out of their own country to enjoy in ours but they take full advantage of our well-developed system of justice and the rule of law—JROL. This means that they can keep their assets secure and also enjoy a reliable means of passing them on to their offspring. Of course, they have no incentive to seek to implement any decent form of JROL in their own country because it is not in their interests to do so. The lack of JROL and the negative effects of corruption mean that countries such as Russia, and many developing countries, will never be able to achieve their full economic potential.

For instance, defence equipment apart, I cannot think of any manufactured product that comes from Russia. No wonder it has an economy the size of Italy’s, despite its natural wealth, larger, if declining, population, and vast space. It is not for us to interfere with the internal arrangements of other sovereign states, but if we denied oligarchs, the super-rich and despots of countries without JROL the safety and advantages of a safe landing and base in UK and other similar countries, they might be more inclined to seek to put their own countries in order. This would have enormous economic benefits and other benefits for the people of those countries.

I turn to the problem of Ukraine. It is clear that any invasion by Russia will result in severe sanctions against Putin’s regime, including Russian tier 1 investors in the UK who are judged to be close to Putin. I am confident that the Government are planning such potential sanctions as we speak, although the likely targets will already have taken precautionary action. However, if our worst fears are realised, we should go much further and hit all Russian tier 1 investors, whether they are President Putin’s friend or foe. That way, they might be more inclined to get off their posteriors and put pressure on Putin and maybe even think about improving JROL and press freedom in Russia. Furthermore, this course of action would not adversely affect the inhabitants of Russia.

We cannot continue to allow filthy, dirty money to come into the UK via the tier 1 investor visa route, because it pollutes our economy, damages the economies of other countries, and seriously erodes our soft power position.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 174 would return rights to people in the UK who are on the overseas domestic workers visa—primarily, the right to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of not less than 12 months. The then coalition Government changed the visa regime in April 2012, so that workers and their immigration status are tied to their original employer, and their visa cannot be renewed past six months. That has caused real concern that the working people involved are tied into situations of abuse and slavery. The cross-party Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, as it then was, said that the changes to the regime had

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery.”

It concluded:

“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery, and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery.”


In 2015, the independent Ewins review called for all overseas domestic workers to be given the right to change employer and apply for further leave to remain in the UK for up to 30 months. It found that the terms of the domestic worker visa were

“incompatible with the … protection of overseas domestic workers’ fundamental rights while in the UK”.

Unfortunately, the Government disagreed with the recommendation; instead, they made more limited changes to the Immigration Rules, with the effect that all domestic workers can change employer during their six-month visa, but only those who are found to be victims of trafficking or modern slavery can change employer and apply to stay for longer in the UK. The problems with this limited approach were set out in the Ewins report: they failed to provide an immediate escape route out of abuse; the six-month limit makes it difficult for people to find other employment; and the national referral mechanism requirement means that a person must have taken the step to report, and met an evidential burden to prove, that they are victim of slavery, which, frankly, many are too frightened to do. We certainly support the thrust of Amendment 174.

Amendment 181 would exempt international volunteers from paying the immigration health surcharge, and I await the Government’s response with interest. I would like to know what consideration the Government have given to extending the exemption, and have the Government met charities which have raised concerns about its effect on volunteering in particular sectors, especially social care?

Amendment 183, about which most has been said—with some feeling and fervour—would require the Government to suspend the tier 1 investor visa route, known as “golden visas”, until the review into those visas has been made public. In its 2020 Russia report, the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that a key measure for

“disrupting the threat posed by illicit Russian financial activity”

is an

“overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach”.

In March 2018, the Government announced a review of golden visas issued between 2008 and 2015. This followed revelations that the Home Office and banks had made next to no diligence checks in that period. According to a freedom of information request in June 2021, the Home Office is reviewing 6,312 golden visas, half of all such visas ever issued, for a range of possible national security threats. Almost four years since the Government announced the review, and as has been said more than once this evening, the findings have not yet been reported.

Many of those who received visas during this period will have been eligible to apply for British citizenship over the past seven years, and it is surely essential that there is full transparency about the findings of the review, including: a detailed breakdown of how many visas have been revoked; how many cases have been referred to law enforcement; and how many applications for renewal or citizenship have been denied.

In the Commons last month, Stephen Kinnock MP asked the following question:

“Six months ago, the Government said that they were finalising their report into how more than 700 Russian millionaires were fast-tracked for British residency via their so-called golden visa scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when that long-overdue report will be published?”


The Foreign Secretary’s reply was:

“We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5 April. I am sure the Home Secretary will have more to say about that in due course.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; col. 60.]


Therefore, I ask the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government: does the Home Secretary have “more to say” about this tonight? We are all waiting to hear why it has taken so long to produce this report. In the absence of a credible explanation, one can conclude only that there are some embarrassing reasons that have led the Government to delay producing this report.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

99: After Clause 172, insert the following new Clause—
“Facilitation of potting
(1) A person commits an offence of facilitation of potting if the person—(a) is in custody and causes or permits their own urine or excrement to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse, or(b) is in custody and causes or permits their own ejaculate to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), only in exceptional circumstances may the court accept a defence of “lawful reason or excuse” in the absence of evidence of a prior direction by a clinically qualified person.(3) A person guilty of an offence to which this section applies is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to establish a specific offence of “facilitating potting”, potting being the practice of throwing urine, excrement or ejaculate at prison staff.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 99, is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Paddick: I am grateful for their support. We return to the issue of potting—that is to say, a disgusting assault using materials mentioned in subparagraph (1) of the new clause and which usually occurs in a custodial setting. In the light of a constructive meeting I had with the Minister last week, I do not propose to detain the House very long on this matter, and I do not believe the House or, indeed, my Chief Whip, is keen to do so either.

Since we debated the matter in Committee, the Government have published a White Paper on the prison system which, inter alia, proposes zero tolerance for bad behaviour in prisons. I have taken on board some of the defects of my original amendment, identified in Committee: the amendment now deals only with the preparatory act of intercepting the relevant substance. It is not necessary to have a new offence for the actual potting, since that is covered by existing offences, and it is not good practice to place a duty to provide spit kits in a clause that seeks to create a new offence.

In Committee, I thought the Minister was a bit optimistic when he said he was not aware of any problems with the issuing of spit kits to prison officers. A subsequent Written Answer revealed that none of the several prisons that I asked about appeared to be issuing spit kits. I accept that spit kits are particularly useful when the offender is not known to the victim—say, a ticket inspector—and when the offender may abscond but probably has a record. However, my underlying concern is to ensure that these disgusting offences do not go unpunished and, as a result, become more frequent and insidious. I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to flesh out the proposals in the Prisons Strategy White Paper to have zero tolerance of bad behaviour within prison.

We all owe a great debt of gratitude to prison officers and prison governors, who we charge with looking after and protecting us from some of the most dangerous, wicked and obnoxious members of our society. We owe it to them to make sure that, if they are assaulted doing their duty, we will back them up and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. If we fail to do so, there will be at least two serious consequences: first, we will experience difficulties in retaining the best possible prison officers; secondly, the remaining prison officers will be demotivated, less willing to ensure full compliance and less willing to ensure that prisons are the safe and humane establishments that we all want them to be. I am pleased to say that I have detected that Ministers have taken all this on board.

Finally, I remind the House that I am not a founder member of the “hang ‘em, flog ‘em and throw away the key brigade”; the House will recall my proposals outlined in my Committee stage Amendment 241, which proposed drastic reform in respect of prolific minor offenders, and I am grateful for the positive response that I received. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his amendment, to the extent that I have added my name. We had discussions between Committee and Report; we agreed that the actual assault was covered by existing legislation, but the preparatory acts in preparing these disgusting attacks on prison staff needed to be addressed. That is how we arrived at the revised amendment, and I am very happy to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all three noble Lords who have spoken on this issue and the two who have supported me. I believe my noble friend the Minister has taken this issue on board, and I thank him for that. We know perfectly well that we are limited as to how many presents we can load on the Christmas tree for the Minister to take back to the Commons, and I accept that there are bigger fish to fry. What I cannot accept is that we allow this type of assault to go unpunished. Prosecution and conviction need to be inevitable. That means necessary evidence must be collected, and the police and the CPS must devote sufficient resources to the problem.

It is clear to me that the amendment is not defective and there is a gap to fill, although I accept that there may be minor drafting issues. The issue is whether we want to create a new offence. The White Paper proposes zero tolerance for bad behaviour, and if potting is not bad behaviour, I do not know what is. Ministers and officials should be aware that I will be working very closely with the Prison Officers’ Association to monitor progress and, if necessary, we can bring this amendment, or a similar one, back at a suitable legislative opportunity. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Was that objection to what I am saying or support? I could not work it out. We should be aiming for zero road deaths. They just should not happen. The roads and pavement should be safe spaces. We achieve that by making sure that drivers—and pedestrians as well, of course—obey the law. Legislation must comprehend just how damaging bad and careless driving are.

Finally, Amendments 65 and 66A would require a total review of road traffic offences and penalties. That really is the only sensible way forward, and the only way for society to properly address the damage caused by car culture and start the journey towards zero road deaths. I look forward very much to hearing the details of the review and hope that it happens soon.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I most sincerely apologise to the House for not being present at the start of this debate. I strongly support the thrust of the amendment about bridge-bashing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. One day the holes in the cheese will line up and there will be a very serious accident, and the whole world will ask why we did not use technology to avoid such accidents. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about “exceptional hardship”; I would not actually vote against the Government on it, but I strongly support it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We welcome the fact that the Government are committing to a call for evidence on road safety issues next year. Like other noble Lords, I should be interested to know how long this exercise is expected to take. Also, is it purely a DfT matter, or a cross-departmental matter—and, if so, which departments are involved? On the general issue of road safety, I comment briefly on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, just said. You could always reduce the number of road accidents fairly dramatically if you reduced the speed limit everywhere to 10 miles an hour, but, as a Government, you might not survive very long politically if you did that.

On “exceptional hardship”—the subject of one of the other amendments—maybe there are cases where courts are a bit too lenient. You have to draw the distinction between hardship and inconvenience, because the two are not the same. You do, however, get cases where there could be exceptional hardship and you have to think long and hard. An example would be a single parent who loses access to a car. That could have quite a profound impact on the children, particularly if they do not realistically have anyone else to help them out. You could also end up with a situation where the disqualification of a carer might involve significant impact—hardship perhaps not so much for the carer but for the person being cared for. When you are faced with some of these situations, it is not quite as straightforward as saying “You’ve broken the law, you’ve reached 12 points and you’re off the road”: you may need to look at the consequences. I note with interest the amendment on exceptional hardship. It may well be taken into account in the review what exceptional hardship means and whether it is being applied too leniently and too frequently.

We support Amendment 58—the minimum driving disqualification periods—as we have the increases in sentences for those offences, including causing death by dangerous or careless driving. We welcome the change that the Government propose.

I think that Amendment 64, relating to hit-and-run, mentions a maximum sentence of 14 years in custody. That seems quite a dramatic increase from the current limit. I am not sure whether it is envisaged that if an accident has caused a serious or fatal injury the maximum of 14 years for not stopping is in addition to what you would get for causing the fatal injury—in which case you could get quite a high sentence. I am just commenting on the fact that it seems to be raising the maximum sentence for failing to stop quite considerably. I do not know what the Minister will say about this on behalf of the Government but again, presumably, there is no reason why that should not be considered as part of the review.

With regard to the new amendment on the hitting of bridges, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley has proposed, I have some sympathy with the view that has been expressed that surely there must be a way that technology can reduce the frequency of these events. Perhaps one is a bit too prone to make speeches saying that technology must be able to resolve these issues for us, but one would have thought that this is one area where technology should play a role, and I hope that the Minister will take this issue away and that the Government will reflect on it as part of their general look at road safety issues. I will leave it at that, without commenting on the other amendments in this group.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to these amendments. Will the Minister, when he comes to reply, agree that the application of the justice system to women poses especial challenges for everyone involved in the justice system, from the Secretary of State downwards? Does he agree that, at the moment, regrettably, there is a crisis of confidence as to how the criminal justice system in particular, but also the civil justice system, addresses the needs of women? Does he therefore accept, as has been suggested by previous speakers, that the creation of a women’s justice board would focus much-needed attention on these important topics?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, my role as a loyal government Back-Bencher is to help my noble friend the Minister, and I think I can do that best by strongly supporting these amendments.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

We on this side of the Committee strongly support these excellent amendments. The Youth Justice Board was set up in 1998. Its first chair—a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Warner—gave it a really good start. The whole point is that it gives real drive, not as part of government but within the state, to make changes, because everybody recognises that children and young people have different needs, both to divert them from the criminal justice system and when they are there. Similarly, in respect of women, this is a real opportunity; give it drive.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

241: After Clause 164, insert the following new Clause—
“Training for offenders
(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) After section 276, insert—“276A Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure for offenders aged at least 18 but under 27(1) A sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure is available to a court dealing with an offender for an offence where—(a) the offender is aged at least 18 but under 27 when convicted,(b) the offence is punishable by that court with imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or over,(c) the court is not required to pass a sentence of—(i) detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure (see section 259), or(ii) custody for life (see sections 272 and 275), and (d) the court is satisfied the offender would benefit from the training that would be provided.(2) The power of the court to impose such a sentence is not subject to section 230 (threshold for imposing discretionary custodial sentence).(3) Section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (duty to release) is not applicable to a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure.276B Term of sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) The maximum full term of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure that a court may impose for an offence is the same as the maximum term of imprisonment that it may impose for the offence in the case of a person aged 21 or over.(2) The minimum term of a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure is 12 months.(3) The term of a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure must be the term (not exceeding the permitted maximum) that in the opinion of the court is commensurate with—(a) the seriousness of the offence,(b) providing enough time for the three stages of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure to be effective, and(c) providing a sufficiently strong incentive for the offender to be motivated to meet the improvements in conduct, training, education and performance determined under section 276C in order to move onto Gradual and Safe Release under section 276I.(4) In forming its opinion for the purposes of subsection (3), the court must take into account all the information that is available to it about the circumstances of the offence, or of it and the associated offence or offences, including any aggravating or mitigating factors.(5) The pre-sentence report requirements in section 30 apply to the court in relation to forming that opinion.(6) See section 232 for additional requirements in the case of an offender suffering from a mental disorder.(7) The court may impose a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure only if it is satisfied that the offender would benefit from it.276C Improvements in conduct, training, education and performance(1) When imposing a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure, subject to subsection (2), the court must determine what objectively measured improvement in conduct, training, education and performance is to be achieved by the offender before being considered for the final stage of training (gradual and safe release).(2) When making the determination mentioned in subsection (1) the court must set improvement requirements that—(a) are demanding but achievable,(b) can be objectively measured using the system mentioned in subsection (3),(c) take into account the capacity of the offender to improve, given sufficient incentive,(d) take into account the seriousness of the offence in question,(e) take into account the needs of the offender,(f) take into account the availability of training offered by the Secretary of State, and(g) significantly improve the chances of the offender exclusively engaging in legitimate employment. (3) The Secretary of State must devise and implement an objective system for measuring the offender’s improvement in education, training and conduct.276D Location and security of training and electronic communications(1) The Secretary of State must locate the necessary training centres in rural locations sufficiently remote to—(a) sever the trainees from malign gang influences,(b) eliminate trainees’ access to illegal substances,(c) eliminate trainees’ access to mobile phone signals and illegal electronic equipment,(d) provide the necessary security by means of remoteness rather than physical security, and(e) minimise expenditure on physical security.(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) the Secretary of State may—(a) direct telecommunication companies to take steps to have the effect of electronically isolating trainees, and(b) make a drone exclusion order and emit electronic signals designed to cause any drone to crash or to come under the control of the Secretary of State.(3) Before making any direction under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must individually consult every adult resident directly affected by the requirements of any such direction.(4) The Secretary of State may offer inducements and compensation to residents adversely affected by directions made under subsection (2).(5) The Secretary of State may conduct the training mentioned in sections 276G and 276H in such locations as he or she sees fit.276E Training teams (1) The Secretary of State may arrange for trainees to undertake their training as part of a team.(2) The Secretary of State may arrange for training teams to be composed with trainees from multiple regions.(3) The Secretary of State may arrange that the teams are competing against each other, especially in exercises.(4) The Secretary of State may arrange that a team can be disadvantaged in terms of privileges and conditions for the team if—(a) the team does not predominate in a training exercise, or(b) a member of the team commits misconduct. 276F Components of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) There are to be three stages of Detention for Training at Her Majesty's pleasure—(a) Basic Compliance Training;(b) Employability Training;(c) Gradual and Safe Release.(2) Trainees must be required to pass out on each stage of training before attempting a later stage of the training.276G Basic Compliance Training(1) The Secretary of State must structure Basic Compliance Training to instil—(a) hope,(b) pride, and(c) discipline.(2) The components of Basic Compliance Training must include, but are not limited to— (a) hope for the future,(b) appearance, dress and bearing,(c) teamwork,(d) nutrition and cooking,(e) basic literacy and numeracy,(f) map reading,(g) first aid training,(h) personal conduct and anger management, both theory and practice, and(i) field craft and camping.(3) The purpose of Basic Compliance Training is to allow the Secretary of State to take greater risks with the trainee and to give the trainee increased personal responsibility for his or her actions.276H Employability Training(1) Employability Training must be composed of trade training, education and personal development.(2) The Secretary of State must structure Employability Training to minimise the probability of re-offending and maximise the offender’s chances of securing permanent good quality legitimate employment.(3) The components of Employability Training must include, but are not limited to—(a) hope for the future,(b) dress and bearing,(c) teamwork,(d) nutrition and cooking,(e) basic literacy and numeracy,(f) map reading,(g) first aid training for a First Aid at Work Certificate,(h) personal conduct and anger management, both theory and practice,(i) adventure training,(j) training in basic fire fighting,(k) training in safe operation of hand-held power tools,(l) training in basic risk assessment,(m) training to acquire a basic construction skills certificate,(n) training to operate a forklift truck,(o) training to erect a prefabricated aluminium access tower, and(p) training exercises both long and short, to test and practise skills.276I Gradual and Safe Release (1) The Secretary of State must structure Gradual and Safe Release to minimise the probability of re-offending and maximise the offender’s chances of securing accommodation and permanent good quality employment.(2) The components of Gradual and Safe Release must include, but are not limited to—(a) arrangements for safe accommodation, not necessarily in the area where the offender was previously resident,(b) arrangements for employment to suit the capability of the offender,(c) requirements not to visit designated areas or places,(d) curfew requirements,(e) abstinence from substance abuse requirements, and(f) tagging requirements. 276J Release on temporary licence for offenders Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) The Secretary of State may grant Release On Temporary Licence (ROTL) to any offender serving a sentence of Detention for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure subject to the conditions in subsection (3).(2) When granting ROTL the Secretary of State may require the offender to—(a) wear an approved tag,(b) adhere to geographical limits,(c) adhere to sobriety requirements,(d) not engage in substance abuse,(e) not use an unauthorised mobile phone or other types of electronic equipment, and(f) not meet or communicate with certain persons or classes of persons.(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are—(a) an offender who has not passed out on Basic Compliance training can be granted ROTL only in exceptional circumstances,(b) ROTL can be granted for weekend leave,(c) ROTL can be granted to enable an offender to travel from one training location to another, and(d) when the offender is on the final stage of Gradual and Safe Release, ROTL can be granted to attend work or live away from prison facilities for extended periods.276K Effect of non-compliance or not engaging with training(1) Where the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are met, the Secretary of State may apply to the court to have the remaining part of the offender’s sentence converted to a sentence of imprisonment for the remaining portion of the sentence.(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are that the offender sentenced to be Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure consistently—(a) fails to make reasonable efforts to comply with the training requirements,(b) makes little or no attempt to address areas for improvement identified by the court under section 276C, or (c) fails to honour the terms of ROTL under section 276J.276L Appointment of mentor for offenders Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a mentor to each offender Detained for Training at Her Majesty’s pleasure.(2) The role of the mentor is to provide—(a) a positive male role model for the trainee,(b) a lay person with the necessary skills to look after the interests of the trainee,(c) a person to whom the trainee can complain about any mistreatment, perceived or real,(d) a person who can skilfully deal with bureaucracy on behalf the trainee when on Gradual and Safe Release, and(e) a person who can attend any passing out or other events.(3) The Secretary of State and prison governors must engage constructively with any mentor appointed under this section when the mentor is undertaking these duties.””

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have already sent a detailed paper to most noble Lords. I would like to make it clear that I will not seek the opinion of the Committee or the House at any point. When we debated short sentences and Amendments 212 and 213, I think that most of the Committee was sure that the current prison system was largely ineffective at preventing reoffending. After looking closely at our penal system during 2018 and 2019, I would say that the current system is not able, or even designed, to secure an improvement in education, training and conduct. Without improvements in these areas, reoffending is inevitable. Noble Lords frequently berate Ministers for the poor state and ineffectiveness of our prisons. Rather fewer noble Lords have been prepared to suggest significant reforms and how we could do very much better.

Internationally, we need to be an exemplar rather than a laggard in prison reform. Although there are many areas of potential improvement in our prison system, none is as pressing or potentially beneficial as the management of prolific minor offenders, or PMOs. I am sure that the Committee will accept that it is almost impossible for a functionally illiterate or innumerate young person to secure legitimate employment. At YOI Feltham, I have seen high-quality, well-motivated teachers with good facilities struggle to get illiterate offenders even to sit down in a classroom, let alone learn. I am not convinced that a conventional classroom environment is the right one for these youngsters. Furthermore, they need exceptionally strong incentives to improve their standard of education as well as their conduct. Unfortunately, there can be cultural issues pulling in the opposite direction.

Several factors militate against securing an improvement in their education, training and conduct. Most significantly, within conventional prisons, there is a drug and gang culture with a huge illicit economy, coupled with an illegitimate hierarchy. All this is facilitated by illegal mobile phones. In recent years, I have come to hugely admire prison officers and governors for their work. They do their very best, but it is the regime we ask them to operate that is a problem.

With my Amendment 241, I propose a new sentence for PMOs, and that is detention for training at Her Majesty’s pleasure, or DFT. Release would be dependent upon achieving the required, objectively measured improvements in education, training and conduct, and the level of improvement required would be set by the courts. If the offender fails to make reasonable efforts to comply, the court would be able to require the whole of the rest of the sentence to be served in the conventional secure estate. That is a very strong incentive.

I would like to be clear that this is not a rehash of “short, sharp shock”, a scheme that was designed to be beastly to offenders in order to deter them from reoffending; nor is it a boot camp. With the former, little was done to improve offenders’ skills, so it was not surprising that they continued to reoffend.

The training would be undertaken in remote rural locations in order to sever connection with local gangs, drugs and illegal mobile phones. The remoteness would provide the security rather than the secure estate, with its forbidding stone walls. The training would be undertaken as part of small, multiregionally composed teams, and being a leading light in the Peckham Warriors would not cut much ice. Since the training would be demanding and fulfilling, at the end of the day the trainees would be more interested in sleep than drugs or getting up to mischief.

I will not weary the Committee with too much detail, as it is set out in my amendment, mainly on page 14 and 19 of the Ninth Marshalled List, as well as in my paper. However: the first component is what I call “Basic Compliance Training”, which is designed to instil hope, pride and discipline. Hope is extremely important, because we currently have a suicide rate in the prison system of at least one per week. The purpose of BCT is to allow greater risks to be taken at later stages of the training. One of these could include the use of ROTL, if appropriate, to comply with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, with respect to contact with families.

The employability training phase is self-explanatory. The point is that trainees need to be given some useful qualifications to make them employable. Take construction work: you cannot just put on a pair of safety boots and walk on to a construction site as a labourer. You need to have a basic construction skills certificate to be safe and competent. DFT would provide the necessary training and testing. This is just an example. Why are we not already providing PMOs with that training—universally and not just in one or two lucky cases?

At the risk of enraging the Daily Mail, I can assure the Committee that there would be elements of fun in the training. This could be especially so in exercises which might be held in an international aid scenario. In my experience, fun is essential to motivate trainees within a disciplined organisation.

The final stage is “Gradual and Safe Release”, which is essentially a glide path to full release rather than what we talked about at Amendment 210, which is a binary “in or out” situation and often doomed to failure. The Committee has already discussed UC and accommodation problems associated with release. There is also provision for a mentor to prevent a variety of adverse outcomes and help the trainee deal with bureaucracy on release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Earl’s amendment because of two experiences of mine. First, I had to undergo 10 weeks of basic compliance training when I did my National Service. It had many of the elements listed here. Hope for the future was there. Certainly, a lot of attention was paid to dress and bearing, teamwork, first aid training, conduct and anger management, fieldcraft and so on. I underwent that for 10 weeks as a recruit. Later in my national service, having become a commissioned officer, I was responsible for training recruits, and I noticed a remarkable difference in their behaviour and appearance between the beginning and the end of the 10 weeks. That impressed on me the value of the training that the Army was then able to provide.

At a later stage in my life, when I was prosecuting criminals, usually in Glasgow High Court, a lot of those who were being prosecuted I could see in my mind’s eye as people who might have been among my platoons of people undergoing training. My great regret was that we had not been able to get hold of them before the gang fights took place that led them to being prosecuted and ultimately going to prison. There is a lot of force in what the noble Earl has suggested. In those days—I am talking about my national service days—there was an enormous force available within the Army to conduct all these procedures. This is not easily managed. You are required to train the trainers and you must have the facilities. However, the philosophy and thinking behind the noble Earl’s amendment has a great deal to recommend it. He is talking about people who have already been convicted, but it would be lovely if one could intercept them before they got into the criminal system in the beginning. We cannot do that but, at least if they have been convicted, we can do something to prevent reoffending, which is what I think his amendment is driving at.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond to what noble Lords have said. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned young offender institutions. When I was getting educated by Frances Crook, I asked her, “How often do inmates at a YOI get taken out on camp?” She said to me, “John, you should ask how often they are taken out of their cells.”

In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I am not proposing conscription or a national service-type solution. However, the points that he makes are absolutely what is informing my thinking. He made a valid point about the need for instructors and I am not proposing the use of the military to provide that function. Prison officers ought to be taking up that role and I envisage, among other things, youngsters who trained as Outward Bound instructors who cannot necessarily get particularly well-paid employment then training as prison officers and being double-hatted. There are a lot of things that we could do if we wanted to do them.

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

My Lords, I will not address the detail of the noble Earl’s amendment, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that there is a great deal of merit in the call for more and better training within the penal system. We have long taken the view that training within prisons in particular is inadequate, poorly arranged and often unavailable. We therefore commend the noble Earl for the thrust of his amendment and certainly commend him for the care and dedication that he has given to setting it out in detail and in the briefing that he circulated.

We are not convinced of the need for a new sentence of detention for training at Her Majesty’s pleasure but we agree with the heart of the amendment, which is the focus on skills to train for future employment, for which there is a great need. The classroom-style of training does not always work. What is needed is training for skills on the job and for soft skills because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, not everyone is suitable for the basic training that perhaps the noble Earl has in mind. There should be a combination of practical, soft and technological skills. We are all for better training. However, we seek the Government’s work to be directed towards the provision of that sort of training—better training and more of it—within the criminal justice system and overcoming the barriers to prisoners being work-ready by the time they finish their terms of imprisonment because, at the moment, there is a serious deficiency in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that what I have said will reassure my noble friend that we take the issue seriously. We think we are doing quite a lot of what underpins his proposal, and we very much welcome proposals such as this because they stimulate debate and thought. None the less, for present purposes, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the response of all noble Lords in this short debate. I would tease my noble friend the Minister and invite him at some stage to read a recent report to the Chief Inspector of Prisons that stimulated some of my thinking.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned soft skills, which are extremely important. I know that anger management training is done within the prison system, but one thing I envisage is on exercises: the trainees have to practise anger management scenarios where they are faced with someone being stroppy and have to respond in the right way, and you can really only do that in an exercise outside the ghastly prison environment.

That takes me on to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about isolation. The inside of a prison is absolutely ghastly. If you have youngsters who are already mentally fragile, having had a ghastly upbringing, which everyone in this Committee knows about, and then stick them in a conventional prison, it is the worst possible environment. That is why I am proposing that, to try to rebuild these youngsters, we need to do it in the beautiful countryside, not inside a ghastly prison. But I am extremely grateful for the response of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 241 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I had a very sheltered upbringing: I do not know where I could get any recreational drugs. If I went to a pub, I would probably find myself trying to buy recreational drugs from an undercover police officer. The one way I could certainly get some drugs is to get myself sent to prison on remand, because I could get drugs in a prison. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister what he is doing to stop drugs getting into prisons. It would be very helpful to understand how drugs get into prisons. Who is bringing them in? That is why my previous amendment referred to “remote” and “rural”, because it would be virtually impossible to import drugs into that establishment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we support this amendment from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As she said, there is a cycle of offences for vulnerable people with drink and drug problems. In many ways it forms the vast majority of cases that we see in magistrates’ courts. I have come from Westminster Magistrates’ Court today and I can assure her that I dealt with as many drug and alcohol cases as I usually do. To use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the numbers are stuck where they are. Things are not getting better.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gave a very full and insightful summary of the statistics. I have been a long-standing member of the drugs and alcohol all-party group. This is an intractable problem that we see throughout the criminal justice system.

The initiative from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is to have a residential rehabilitation unit at the start, essentially, of any potential custodial sentence, and if people dropped out, they would then get a custodial sentence. It might work and it may well be worth a try. I will make one comment—I hate doing this, because one of the consequences of being a magistrate is that one becomes a sceptic, but nevertheless I will say that I think drug therapies work better when people do them voluntarily. I often say to people when I release them on bail on a drugs offence, whatever the offence, “If you can engage voluntarily in drug rehabilitation”—very often those are the same services that they are statutorily required to go to—“then any sentencing court when you come back to be sentenced will look on it more favourably.” Sometimes that message gets home.

Despite that note of scepticism, I still support the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment. It is another approach. There needs to be a multitude of approaches to address this scourge, and this particular approach is worth a try.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 165 should stand part of the Bill.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose the Question that Clause 165 stand part of the Bill; I seek not to add but to remove something from the Bill. Section 9B of the Juries Act 1974 gives the judge the power to consider whether a disabled person can undertake their duties as a juror when there is doubt on the part of court officials. New Section 9C requires the judge to consider whether a British Sign Language interpreter would enable the juror to be effective. The rest of the clause is concerned with sensible, consequential provisions.

The Committee should note that the judge is involved only if there is doubt on the part of officials. A potential juror with an effective hearing aid would not go through the Section 9B process since there would be no doubt that they could be effective. I undertook jury duty many years ago, long before arriving at your Lordships’ House. It was indeed interesting to me, but I regarded it as a duty or an obligation. It is not a right or a privilege in addition to being a duty, as, for example, voting in a general election is. Therefore, I see no requirement to make these special provisions so far as a completely deaf juror is concerned.

I accept that many deaf people can also lip-read, which would no doubt supplement the assistance of a BSL interpreter. My concern is surely that many cases turn on the credibility of the witness and, sometimes, which witness is not telling the truth. Suppose in a case involving an expert witness, counsel is asking searching questions and makes a provocative suggestion. The expert witness might calmly respond, “No, that is not correct”, knowing full well that opposing counsel will return to the matter later. However, what the deaf juror inadvertently could pick up is, “No, that’s wrong”, which might appear to be the counsel having the witness on the ropes, when that is far from the facts.

A further difficulty might arise in the jury room when deliberating the verdict. I have been in the jury room. Discussion could be fast and furious, and I cannot see how the interpreter could possibly keep up. It would be possible to slow the proceedings down, which might be beneficial, but since we do not research how juries operate we cannot tell what the effect would be. The other jurors may simply ignore the deaf juror.

Finally, the clause also, quite properly, makes consequential provisions that put the interpreter under the same obligations of confidentiality as the other jurors. However, he or she is not a decision-maker and will still be in a different position, and we cannot know what, if any, chilling effect on discussions may arise from the interpreter’s presence. I expect noble Lords supporting me will come up with far better arguments than mine, but I oppose the Question that Clause 165 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I have added my name to the noble Earl’s opposition to Clause 165. I understand that jury service is a civic duty and there are strong equality arguments that a deaf person should not be disqualified because they cannot proceed without an interpreter. I also understand that the judge has discretion over whether the nature of the issues in the case makes it appropriate for a sign language interpreter to retire with the jury, and that the clause makes it very clear that the interpreter will have a duty not to interfere in or influence the deliberations of the jury. I understand all that, but I have concerns about the consequences of allowing a 13th or 14th person to sit in the jury room. I say 13th and 14th, because there will be a need for at least two interpreters, as any one interpreter is going to struggle to perform this task for more than 30 minutes at a time.

The first set of concerns relates to the effects on the dynamics of the jury. A jury depends on effective communications between the 12 persons serving on it. To ensure that the interpreter performs their role effectively, he or she may need to intervene in the deliberations to prevent people from talking over each other; and the interpreter may need to ask people to repeat themselves or to clarify what they are saying. This will have an effect on the dynamics of the jury room. There is also the potential problem that what is said by the interpreter to the deaf person cannot be understood and monitored by the rest of the jury.

That was the first set of concerns. The second type of concern is that Clause 165 makes provision only for a subset of otherwise excluded members of a jury. We are not making any provision for potential jurors who have insufficient command of English to participate effectively, or persons who cannot read relevant documents because of a low level of literacy or poor eyesight. The clause also makes no provision for deaf or hearing-impaired people who do not use British Sign Language but instead use text communication systems. It is a bit odd to make provision only for deaf persons, and then only for a subset of deaf persons.

My third concern is that, as I understand from helpful discussions with the Minister, provisions similar to Clause 165 have been the subject of testing in other jurisdictions, but no modelling has been done with shadow juries in this country. The noble Earl mentioned that we cannot do research with real juries, but research is often done with shadow or model juries. I ask the Minister whether it would not be sensible, before such a significant change to jury trial is introduced in this country, to conduct some research with shadow or pretend juries to see how this is going to work.

--- Later in debate ---

Maybe it is going further when you are talking about the 12 people in a jury room and then a 13th and 14th. Maybe that is different; I understand that argument and I look forward to the Minister’s response. But I will just make the point that a colleague of mine is deaf and sitting as a magistrate. I also understand that she sits on other tribunals as well. Having said that, I will reserve judgment and listen to what the Minister says, and I will see what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has to say about what he intends to do with this amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

I would like to quickly pick up on one thing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, touched on, which was the position of a blind juror. I would have no problem at all with a blind juror. I expect that there are blind jurors and that the current legislation in Section 9B already provides for that without any difficulty.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, this was an especially thoughtful and constructive debate. I agree with the words that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, used to describe the debate. His reference to the magistrate was interesting, but the problem with all analogies is that they are different. I am going to focus specifically on the jury issue because I recognise that a number of Members of the Committee have made particular points about jurors.

I will start with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who referred us to the Equality Act; that is an important starting point for the debate, although it may not be the finishing point. We must ensure that the services of the courts are accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. We must pay due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity wherever possible. That, in a nutshell, is why Clause 165 is part of the Bill. Having said that, and because I know that this will be a debate that is looked at by those outside this House as well as by those inside it, let me place on record what need not be said but I am going to say it anyway: that everybody in this Committee shares that aim. We heard a very personal example from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, of Lady Judge’s work in this area. Again I say this for the avoidance of doubt where there should not be any: I am proceeding on the basis that all who have questioned or opposed our proposals do so with the very best of motives and certainly not for any other reason.

Trial by jury is a fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system, and serving as a juror is one of the most important civic duties that anyone can be asked to perform. I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee that it is a duty and not a right, but the Government and I want to ensure that as many people as possibly can perform that duty. Reasonable adjustments can be made by our courts to enable most people with disabilities to complete jury service. This, importantly, includes deaf jurors who can lip-read. I invite the Committee to reflect very carefully on the position of the deaf juror who can lip-read and to consider it in respect of each of the objections that have been put. I will come to some of them to which this would not apply, but a number of the objections would potentially apply to a juror who is deaf but who can lip-read. Nobody else in the court is likely to know how good the lip-reading is, whether the lip-reader gets every nuance, or how lip-reading affects the dynamics either in the jury box or in the jury retirement room.

That is the first point we get from the deaf juror who lip-reads, but there is another point as well: it underlines the proposition that there is no bar in principle to a deaf person serving on a jury. This is about one issue only, which is the 13th—I will come back to the 14th—person in the jury retirement room. That is why we need the legislation, because at the moment it is 12 and no more; I put the jury bailiff to one side. The issue at the moment is that, unlike a lip-reader who, if the judge considers that they can effectively discharge their duties as a juror—which I will come back to—can serve on a jury, a juror who needs a British Sign Language interpreter is unable to get that assistance because entry to the deliberation room is limited to the jurors, and no one else may enter. The essential point that this clause focuses on is permitting the BSL interpreter to go in, thereby enabling that juror to fulfil their duty.

I recognise that there have been what I might call practical, and almost philosophical, principled objections and concerns raised about the proposal. I note that the Bar Council of England and Wales has expressed its support, subject, it is fair to say, to the right safeguards, which I believe we have in place. I reassure the Committee that we considered the safeguards very carefully in developing the legislation. We looked at research and current practice in the USA, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland—which is planning to legislate for this form of interpretation—and Australia, where provision is already made for BSL interpreters or the equivalent in its jury systems.

I will first deal with the philosophical or principled objections. I understand the reservations that this might undermine the jury deliberation process, and I understand the argument, although I do not accept it, that interpreters could unduly influence or impact the dynamic of the discussions. There has been a lot of research, particularly in New South Wales, to explore whether deaf people can sufficiently access court proceedings and make informed decisions as jurors. The research suggests that deaf jurors are not hindered from speaking during deliberations and that other jurors seemingly have no issue with the presence of the interpreter or interacting with the deaf juror.

We have put safeguards in the Bill to help to address these issues. Offences relating to research and sharing research during the trial will apply as much to the interpreter as they do to the jurors. As has been pointed out, there is a new offence whereby an interpreter intentionally interferes in or influences the deliberations of the jury or proceedings before the court. I have said “interpreter”, but I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out—I acknowledge my gratitude to him and others for sparing time to discuss this with me—that there will be two BSL interpreters present in the jury deliberation room, not only because they need to switch over as it is a very intensive process for the interpreter but because it has the benefit that they will be able to monitor each other and maintain a consistently high quality of interpretation. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I say that the nuances will be as much picked up by the sign language interpreters as we can anticipate—or not—that they will be picked up necessarily by a lip-reader.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that the jury room is not just confidential but also private; those things are different, and it is both. There is no intention to allow the academics or the researchers in. There is certainly no intention to move from what I think in the judicial review context is called “the judge over your shoulder” to the Minister standing over the juror’s shoulder. We are certainly not going there.

The interpreters will be bound by a confidentiality agreement and be bound by law, and there is an offence to keep everybody honest. They will also be required to swear an oath or affirmation to that effect, alongside their existing interpreter’s oath or affirmation.

I turn to the practical concerns around the nature of evidence and whether a deaf juror will be able to interpret facial expressions, together with audio evidence, effectively. Again, I heard the example from the noble and learned Lord as to how something was said in a tone of complete resignation. The word used in the Act, and in this clause, is “effectively”. The judge would have to decide whether the juror could effectively discharge their role as a juror. This provision does not require judges to admit such jurors on to the jury; it simply removes the blanket ban that would otherwise be present. It means that jurors who need a BSL interpreter can be considered alongside other jurors for whom other reasonable adjustments might be required.

The ultimate decision will be for the trial judge, who will take into account the nature of the case and the nature of the evidence that is going to be heard. No doubt he or she would want to hear submissions from the parties, although they would not be bound by them. As I have said, none of this is new. Again, I ask the Committee to consider how the trial judge should deal with a juror who says, “Well, I lip-read.” The trial judge, again, would have to consider what the evidence in the case was going to be and whether they were going to be able to fulfil their role effectively. There is no difference in principle, and the test and approach of the judge would have to be the same.

I accept that there will be cases where a deaf person would not be able to serve on a jury. I expect that there will be cases where a lip-reading juror might not be able to serve on a jury—for example, if the evidence is audio only and there is nobody to look at; there is just a telephone call playing.

--- Later in debate ---

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for drawing specific attention to the Scottish research. We were aware of some of that, but we will look at it now in more detail. I am very grateful to him and I have already passed that on to officials. However, for the reasons I have set out, I invite the Committee to permit Clause 165 to be part of the Bill. I suggest that it is right in principle and we can make it work in practice.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, first I pay tribute to my noble friend for his response to our concerns. When I read the Bill, as all noble Lords do, I read it carefully and this clause immediately attracted my attention, because I thought it would be of interest to your Lordships. I think the best course of action is to incorporate this clause into the Bill and then recognise that this matter is far beyond my pay grade and we should perhaps leave it to other noble and learned Lords to pursue it at a later stage if they think it is necessary. I think we should put the question.

Clause 165 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said. One of the most obvious applications for restorative justice would be in the aftermath of a road traffic accident. I touched on this during our debates on road traffic offences. The difficulty is that, in motor vehicle insurance, the contract prohibits the parties from discussing the accident at all, making it impossible to use restorative justice for road traffic offences related to accidents. Can my noble friend the Minister consider this and write to me on the point? I do not expect a reply right now.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

Restorative justice is a very wide issue, and one should not think that because it does not work for road traffic accidents it does not work. Furthermore, it is done only with the agreement of the parties involved.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

The equality impact assessment acknowledges that there may be an indirect discriminatory impact but argues that this can be objectively justified, albeit not to the satisfaction of the JCHR or the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. Ministers repeatedly counter accusations of discrimination with the assurance that the proposals will not affect the vast majority of Travellers, who are law-abiding citizens. We agree that the vast majority are law-abiding. The whole point of our concern is that this punitive legislation, with its imprecise wording, is likely to turn many of these law-abiding citizens into officially second-class, non-law-abiding citizens. The draft guidance has done nothing to assuage this concern. It will disproportionately affect the Traveller community either directly—because they are unable to avoid its requirements in the absence of adequate sites—or indirectly, because of the fears to which it has given rise. Can the Minister say to what other group the Government expect the legislation to be applied, and on what basis? I have yet to hear or read any convincing rebuttal of the charge that this clause will be discriminatory in its impact.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, in responding to this group of amendments, I shall make four points with varying degrees of effort.

First, I commend the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. She is one of the few people in Parliament who is prepared to speak up for the GRT community, which she has done for many years. In this context, we should also remember the work of the late Lord Avebury. It really shows the benefit of having an appointed House, complementing an elected one. While my next point might not find favour with the noble Baroness, I hope that she, and other noble Lords, will be rather more relaxed regarding my last two.

Secondly, we keep discussing the unwillingness of local authorities to provide sufficient sites for Travellers to meet the demand. A possible concern of local authorities is that demand might be insatiable. A far bigger concern is that local authorities are answerable to their electorates. As we have discussed, there is no sector of our society more despised and feared than the Travellers. I accept that local authorities have legal obligations and that they are not adhering to them.

It may help the Committee if I describe my own lived experience, which is not unusual for people who operate in the countryside. I have a small workshop near Basingstoke where I undertake pro bono engineering work, largely in support of a museum that is a registered charity. Every single day I go there, I have to expend 30 minutes of work releasing and, later on, securing my equipment so that it is too difficult for Travellers to steal it. In the countryside, everybody has to take similar anti-Traveller precautions, which are expensive and result in significant loss of productivity.

One day, the heavy-duty padlock for my workshop container was literally ripped off the door mechanism. Fortunately for me, there was nothing of interest to them inside. It was thought that they were looking for quad bikes. Soon after, and near that location, a farmyard complex was broken into and a quad bike was stolen. At a nearby farm, Travellers broke into a 40-foot shipping container. They applied such brutal force to the lock mechanism that the container was shifted 12 inches from its original position. Fortunately, there were no quad bikes to steal. I mention quad bikes because, in August 2019, PC Andrew Harper was killed by Travellers resisting arrest for the theft of a quad bike.

It may surprise the Committee and the outside world to hear that I am not wealthy. I am the original impoverished Earl. However, in January 2012, I was able to buy the one and only new vehicle that I have ever owned. It was a Land Rover Defender and, to put it mildly, I became emotionally attached to it, as most Defender owners do. On 21 October, when I was in your Lordships’ House, that vehicle was stolen from a railway station. It is very unlikely that I will ever see it again. It was most likely in a shipping container before I left your Lordships’ House.

Obviously, I cannot claim that it was stolen by Travellers. What I can report, however, is that when Hampshire police successfully raided a Traveller site near Odiham on 25 October, they recovered about 25 vehicles, including three Land Rovers and several quad bikes. Sadly, mine was not among them. I understand that this well-planned operation required 60 police officers in order for it be undertaken safely and without risk of disorder. This would have been a force-level operation and would have taken some time for the police to plan.

The inescapable fact is that, collectively, Travellers are above the law. When the police have good reason to believe that stolen goods are located at a Traveller site, there is little they can do about it. I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a Question on this very point on 15 October 2002. Afterwards, when we had a chat in the Prince’s Chamber, he said to me, “Not bad, not bad.”

My third point, which may be more palatable to most of the Committee, is that the provisions in the Bill are unlikely to help much, if at all. Despite the difficulties being experienced by the police, which I have already referred to, according to the Prison Reform Trust’s Bromley Briefings, 5% of the prison population identifies as being from a Gypsy, Roma or Traveller background. This is a totally disproportionate ratio that cannot be accounted for by bias, although bias probably exists to some extent. It is clear to me that a large proportion of the Traveller population is illiterate, innumerate and unable—and unwilling—to engage in exclusively legitimate economic activity. The youths convicted of killing PC Andrew Harper, I understand, fall into that category. However, I do not believe that a nomadic lifestyle cannot be legitimate. There must be plenty of things that Travellers can do to help our society.

My fourth and final point concerns solutions. How to prevent the Traveller community bringing up their children with the weaknesses and defects I have referred to is a complex social and cultural problem, and is not for me. The prison system is a different matter. According to the chief inspector’s monotonously depressing reports, all we do with prisoners of this nature is keep them in one building with extremely limited purposeful activity, fail to address their weaknesses and then wonder why we have a general reoffending rate of about 65% within 12 months of release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Can I ask the noble Earl a question? It seems, from listening to his speech, he is saying that all Travellers are criminals. He did not quite say that all criminals are Travellers, but he got some way towards it. What is his solution? Is it to deport them to some offshore island, so they do not affect our way of life?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

When the noble Lord looks at my speech carefully, he will see I said there is legitimate economic activity for Travellers. I accept that plenty of Travellers engage exclusively in legitimate economic activity. I decided not to tease the noble Lord and ask him who he thought was stealing all the electrical cables from the railway system.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the lateness of the hour and eloquence of many of the speeches tonight mean that I can be brief, but I feel compelled to say a few words in this debate. First, to the noble Earl opposite, to cite particular crimes committed by particular people of whichever community is no justification for a measure that targets all members of that community. We could all cite the statistics of people in prison. We know, for example, there is a disproportionate percentage of black and brown people in prison. Would that justify further criminalisation and demonisation of people who look more like me and less like the noble Earl? I think not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

When the noble Baroness looks at my speech in Hansard, she will see that I am arguing, as I will in relation to my Amendment 241, that we need to do something useful with people when they are in prison. The system we have does not address their needs.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people are a tiny percentage of our population in the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly, they are one of the most demonised minorities, not just in our nations, but historically and in Europe. We would not have a post-World War II human rights framework but for atrocities perpetrated against minorities, including Gypsy and Roma people.

It is very upsetting to look at Part 4 of the Bill. It is a disgrace. I am sorry to have to say this, but Part 4 is an inherently discriminatory piece of legislation. It is as discriminatory as previous ignominious legislation targeting east African Asians or gay people. If it passes in its present form it will be notorious. I have no doubt at all that it violates Articles 8 and 14 of the convention, at the very least, as other noble Lords have said. I praise the eloquence and perseverance of my noble friend Lady Whitaker in particular, and of many noble Lords and right reverent Prelates.

They know whereof they speak: to persecute people for their nomadic lifestyle—to criminalise the Traveller way of life—is the equivalent, I have no hesitation in saying, of criminalising people for their dress, their food or their prayers. It is a significant attack on their way of life to criminalise them for stopping in places when they have nowhere else to stop. Part 4 is that despicable. I signed one of the amendments; I could have signed any of them. This part, however, should not stand in any primary legislation in a civilised country.

This bit of the Bill is being put forward as part of a very populist and nasty culture war, to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is very dangerous. As the honourable Member for Maidstone, who has not been in this Chamber—perhaps one day she will come—but whose name has been mentioned at many points today, said, be careful about the difference, the fine line, between being popular and being populist. We might well remember that when we consider this part on Report.

My final thought is that in a former role I once had the privilege of chairing a meeting—it was, as I recall, at the Conservative Party conference. The audience was very sceptical about the value of human rights, and the Human Rights Act in particular. It was, potentially, a tricky meeting. I chaired a speaker who was addressing concerns in the audience about prisoners having human rights. Again, that is not a popular group in our society—prisoners and human rights is a bad cocktail. He was saying that prisoners have human rights and that some of them even thought that they had a right to a flushing toilet. What a disgrace that was—the audience was very upset and wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act, as some people still do. This eloquent and learned speaker said that it was very simple to deal with the problem: just fix the loo.

Fix the loo—do not demonise the prisoner, do not scrap the Human Rights Act, just fix the problem that is giving rise to the concern. In this case the fix would be to give people stopping places and the support that they need. The criminal law will deal with burglary and with people using their dogs to terrorise people, and will protect the innocent farmer. I wonder whether the eloquent speaker and passionate defender of the Human Rights Act who spoke at that meeting will remember the occasion, as I always have. He was, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we strongly support all these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville said, the crucial point here is that if legal sites were provided it is unlikely that these provisions would even be in the Bill. Having adequate sites is likely to be cheaper than the cost of taking legal action against those who have no option other than to trespass. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the Bill’s provisions, whether by accident or design, will very clearly disproportionately impact an already vulnerable minority: the Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities. What would happen if the Government and local authorities made it a criminal offence for motorists to park their cars illegally and then did not provide enough spaces for motorists to park legally? There would be uproar.

My noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Bakewell told the Committee from their extensive experience about hostility towards Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that when he reads back what he said in Hansard it will be open to interpretation that, for every crime he described where he could not say who the perpetrator was, he implied that all those crimes were committed by Travellers, without any evidence that they were responsible for those particular crimes. That is why there is so much hostility towards these communities because speeches such as that can be misinterpreted as, “The noble Earl is saying that those communities are responsible for all these crimes, even the ones where we do not know who committed them.”

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

The only difficulty, of course, is that it is the countryside police offer who tells the victims that it was the Travellers.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am keen for this not to be left hanging in uncertainty. Perhaps a bit of further explanation will be helpful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

This is a backstop power that will be used rarely. However, if needed, it could be utilised; for example, where one of the specified authorities fails to participate in the preparation of the local strategy. If a direction was issued and the authority still refused to comply—that was the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—on the basis that it believed that doing so would breach data protection legislation, the Secretary of State would need to apply for a mandatory order and the court would ultimately decide, but I do not think that there is any question of breaching data protection legislation.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her objection to the clause standing part, I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee and can speak as many times as we like.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I have had enough.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce this group of amendments, and of those, Amendments 13, 15, 16 and 18 are in my name. They are of course probing amendments at this stage.

The Government are seeking to change the standards by which police driving is to be judged. I should explain to noble Lords that I have some background on this issue, because for 18 years I was a JP, and over those years I dealt with a number of cases that involved police pursuit. Controversial cases where police pursuit leads to traffic accidents of course occur regularly.

I have my own personal experience of this. More than a decade ago, I was involved in one such incident. One evening, I was driving along a long, straight stretch of road in Cardiff—a two-lane road, with a mix of residential and commercial properties, that had intermittent central barriers. I suddenly became aware of cars coming towards me at considerable speed, well above the 30 miles per hour limit. It turned out to be a car driven by a very young man, with a passenger, pursued by two police cars. The problem was that they were on my side of the road, and I was on a part of the road with a central barrier. There was literally nowhere for me to go. There was a head-on crash, my car was a write-off, and there was a three-car pile-up because the car being pursued turned over and one of the police cars impacted it.

The seriousness of the crash was indicated by the fact that the road was closed for the night. We had three additional police cars on the scene, two ambulances, a fire engine and a police helicopter. I spent the night in A&E, but it could easily have been very much worse, because the passengers in the other cars suffered only minor injuries too.

Why were the police taking the risk of this pursuit? There were a number of pedestrians around—the crash happened in front of a pub. The official explanation was that the car was stolen, and I was told that the young men were suspected of at least one burglary—but that was a historical suspicion. However, until the pursuit, there was clearly no risk to life and no immediate danger of violence. It has always been clear to me that that pursuit was unlikely to have been justified.

My Amendments 13 and 16 are designed to probe how the Government envisage the new standards being applied. Since the Road Traffic Act 1988, police driving standards have been judged in the same way as those for any other driver despite the additional training they receive and the various exemptions that apply to them. Following a Police Federation campaign, there was a Home Office consultation which included a question on whether the new looser standards should apply only to pursuit or to police response driving generally. Clauses 4 to 6 give effect to the proposed changes, which would judge police driving against the standards of a competent and careful police officer with additional training. The new standards are to be applied to police purposes generally. However, this is a very wide definition. My amendment suggests that it should be limited to pursuit only.

I fully accept that there is an argument that it could also include I-grade—immediate grade—responses. I know that the grading of police responses varies from one force to another but, generally, I-grade calls are those where the immediate presence of a police officer will have a significant impact on the outcome of an incident. It is typically categorised as where there is likely to be a danger to life, a serious threat of violence, serious damage to property or serious injury. The response time is 15 minutes. The other grades of police response are generally called significant, S grade, or extended, E grade, and they do not involve a risk to life or injury. S grade gives a response time of 60 minutes and E grade 48 hours. Clearly, in neither of those cases is there a justification for extremely fast speeds and less than the normal, competent standards of driving that the rest of us ordinary mortals are expected to follow. I would therefore appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why any kind of police purpose would be regarded as acceptable. We need a greater justification for these changes.

Amendments 15 and 18 also probe the impact of these changes by suggesting that the Secretary of State be given the power to extend the new standards to other emergency services. Noble Lords will understand that this is an inquiry. Ambulance drivers and drivers of fire engines also receive special training. They are highly skilled drivers, trained to break the normal rules of the road. They respond to calls where there is an immediate danger to life. It could be argued that that applies routinely in the case of ambulance drivers, whereas it probably applies fairly exceptionally in the case of the police. My question to the Minister is this: where do the other emergency services stand in relation to the changes to the rules that the Government are suggesting in this legislation? Are we to expect changes for other emergency services in further legislation, or is that not necessary for legal reason that I have not been able to uncover?

I realise, of course, that the two sets of amendments do not sit particularly well together. I am not arguing a case one way or the other. I am simply seeking to emphasise that these are probing amendments to see what is in the Government’s mind. What is their intention?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 14 and 17 in this group. I hope—in fact I am confident—that my noble friend the Minister will give a full explanation of the purpose of these clauses in the Bill, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. My concern is the inclusion of staff members in these new tests of dangerous and careless driving. I can understand the need to include civilian police driving instructors, but what I do not understand is the inclusion of other staff members. I hope that the Minister can explain why they need to be included.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this is a difficult and contentious part of the Bill. There has been much debate for decades about the police approach to vehicle pursuit in particular, and the ability of emergency service drivers to disregard traffic signs and speed limits in an emergency. There have been tragedies where emergency vehicles on their way to serious and urgent incidents have ignored traffic lights or give way signs, or driven on the wrong side of the road, often in an attempt to save or protect lives, and tragically they have been involved in collisions with innocent members of the public, causing serious injury and sometimes loss of life, as my noble friend Lady Randerson has so graphically illustrated from her own personal experience.

This is perhaps the less contentious of the two areas. But even here, for police control room staff—I am sure the same happens with the fire brigade and the ambulance service—calls are graded as follows: emergencies, with arrival as soon as possible; immediate, with arrival within an hour; or routine. This is to ensure that police vehicles are not driven at speed unnecessarily.

I declare an interest as a former police officer who, although in possession of a full driving licence, attended a six-week, full-time police driving course just to become a standard police driver. I was not authorised to drive high-powered cars designed for use in responding to emergency calls and I was not allowed to become involved in vehicle pursuit of criminals, but simply to be a police driver answering routine calls. Of course, it is possible to become inadvertently involved in a chase, when a car that is asked to pull over refuses to stop, as happened to me on occasion, but as soon as a qualified driver was behind, I dropped out of the pursuit. Being an advanced trained driver involved many more weeks of intensive training; from memory, two six-week courses, with a very high failure rate. The courses were highly sought after and awarded to only the most experienced officers. Police drivers are trained to some of the highest driver standards in the world.

In addition, police control room staff have the authority to direct police vehicles to withdraw from pursuits where the driver of the police vehicle involved is not suitable to conduct the pursuit, where the seriousness of the offence alleged does not justify the risks associated with a high-speed chase, or where the driving conditions —the type of road, the time of the day or any other factor; my noble friend mentioned the presence of pedestrians, for example—present an unreasonable risk to the public and the officers who are involved in the pursuit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his place, and wish him well in his role. If I had realised that he was responding, I would have said that when I made my initial remarks. I apologise and look forward to our discussions.

One thing I did before discussing this group and the next group of amendments—which are incredibly important and deal with really difficult areas of law—was to Google some of the problems. Before I look at some of the examples, just from Googling, of where there have been problems around police pursuits of one sort or another, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for sharing her horrible, terrible and awful experience with the Committee. That is another example of the sorts of issues that can arise from a police pursuit, and thankfully she is here to tell us the tale. We all found it very moving.

As I say, just from Googling, there are various examples that show some of the difficulties: an M27 police pursuit and 100-mile-per-hour chase, with a driver weaving in and out of traffic; “Driver, 18, narrowly misses bus in police pursuit”; “Driver loses police in wrong-way pursuit”; “Car driven along a railway track to escape the police”. This is not to question any of those individual cases—I did not read them; I just looked at the headlines—but a quick Google shows the extent of the problems that arise. Clearly, as it stands, the Government are seeking to address a very real issue. It is not easy, because if you are the victim of a crime, or something is going on, you want the police to respond as quickly as possible. It is a difficult situation for the police, and these clauses seek to deal with that. I appreciate that these are probing amendments, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, but they raise important issues that will need clarifying in both this group and the next.

We welcome these clauses because, like most people, we have been saying for a long time that there is a need for proper and improved protection for police drivers, who regularly put themselves in danger in the line of duty to pursue suspects. That is what we all want them to do. These clauses put recognition of the training that officers have had and the purposes of the journeys that they take into law. We should pay tribute to the Police Federation for the work it has done in campaigning consistently for this. As I have said already, however, we can see that issues arise from it—indeed, they have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Earl opposite.

Amendments 13 and 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, narrow the clauses to police pursuit. We can see the purpose of the amendments when rereading the Bill, which says:

“Subsection (1B) applies where a designated person … is driving for police purposes”.


I suggest to the Minister that that is a bit vague. What on earth does it mean? Without being sarcastic, “police purposes” could mean that you get in a car to drive down the road because you have to go and see somebody about a crime. That is a police purpose. I am not suggesting that any police officer would therefore drive at 100 miles per hour to do that, but we can see the problem that the noble Baroness is trying to get at; “police purposes” is really wide-ranging. On the other hand—and no doubt the Minister will say this when he responds—saying “police pursuit purposes” narrows it down to the extent that we end up excluding the possibility of the police having an emergency response to things that we would all wish them to have an emergency response to. That is why, I suspect, the noble Baroness has made them probing amendments. Indeed, she said that if you thought somebody was in danger, or if a murder, serious rape or something like was that taking place, you would not want the police driving along slowly to get there. You would want them—in a proper way—getting there as soon as possible with an armed response or whatever response was appropriate.

On one hand, the Bill has, “police purposes”, and I am not sure that that is drafted as well as it might be, but then the definition we would want—“police pursuit purposes”—probably narrows it too much, which is why I am pleased it is a probing amendment. The Committee wants the Government to come back, I think, with something that encapsulates that competing and conflicting point about where we go with respect to that.

Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—again, this is the point of any Committee—removes any driver from the Bill who is not a constable or civilian driving instructor who is training a police driver. He is saying to the Government, and I think it is a really good point, that they have a long list of designated persons in the Bill—I will not read them all out. I remind the Committee that it does not apply just to the police force; it applies—and it is a good thing the Government added this to the Bill—to the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence, the Scottish Police Authority and the National Crime Agency. These can be designated and it gives power to the chief constables and chief officers of those to designate a person, to give them the authority to drive in that way if they have received training. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is therefore right to ask why. What is the Government’s justification for extending this to that range? There might be a very good reason for it, but it is a point we need to understand.

To conclude on this group of amendments, can the Minister shed light on my earlier point as well as who is covered by the current list of designated persons in the Bill and why they have been included?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, if I may come in briefly before my noble friend the Minister speaks, I think the term “for police purposes” appears in other forms of road traffic law. I am not certain, and maybe the Minister can help us on that.

On “police purposes”, I have given the Committee an example of where a police driver might choose to go very fast indeed but perfectly safely. Suppose a passenger carrying vehicle, a minibus, breaks down on the motorway somewhere. As soon as the driver tells the police control room they are a passenger carrying vehicle and they have passengers in the back of that vehicle, I imagine that the police will try to get there as fast as they possibly can, to get a police car behind that broken-down vehicle. That would be a “police purpose”. It is not a pursuit, it is not after criminals; however, a police driver in those circumstances, because he is properly trained in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says, would be expected to identify a change in road surface. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will remember being trained to identify a change in road surface, so actually, if he fails to identify a change in road surface, he could in fact be caught by the changes proposed by the Government.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Attlee for explaining their amendments. I think it is clear that we all want the same outcome, which is protecting police officers who are pursuing dangerous criminals, but also protecting the public. The Government believe that Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill achieve a sensible balance in meeting these objectives. We believe police officers must be able to do their jobs effectively and keep the public safe without fear of prosecution for simply doing their job in the manner that they are trained to do. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed to some really quite poignant examples of exactly that.

Current laws do not recognise the training that police drivers undertake and the tactics they may have to employ to respond to emergencies and pursue criminals. The new test will allow courts to judge their standard of driving against a “competent and careful” police constable with the same level of training, providing assurance that their skills and training will be taken into account. The new comparison with a “competent and careful” police driver takes into account whether a police driver with the same training would have reasonably made the same decision under the same circumstances.

I was very moved by the personal experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Her Amendments 13 and 16 seek to specify that the new standard should apply only to “police pursuit purposes”, rather than all “police purposes”.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords that the approach taken in these clauses is the right one and that, on this basis, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, could the Minister tell us what powers ambulance drivers and fire engine drivers have in terms of being able to disregard speed limits and traffic regulations? He may choose to write to me—that will be fine—but I think it would be very helpful for the Committee to know what those drivers can and cannot do. I understand his point that the requirements of the police are more extensive.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I undertake to write to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, we are extraordinarily lucky to have the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I have just one anxiety about a national standard: conditions in the Metropolitan Police area are different from those facing, say, Devon and Cornwall Police. Devon and Cornwall Police might not have to dismount someone riding a motorbike illegally very often, whereas I suspect it is something the Metropolitan Police has to do quite often. On the one hand, I can see the benefit of national police standards, but I have an anxiety that they might not meet the different needs of different types of police force.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I think national standards would say that the tactic of colliding with a stolen motorbike was an acceptable tactic that officers could be compared against whether or not it was actually used by particular forces, bearing in mind the circumstances faced by different forces. So, legally, officers in Devon and Cornwall could use that tactic according to the national standard, but it would be very rare for them to use it—if ever at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments would improve the Bill. The legislation in some respects is too loose, and needs to be tightened. I hope that, when we move from Committee to Report in a few weeks, the Minister will have had time to reflect on the previous group but also on some of the points being made here, because that will make what we all want much more likely to happen. I hope that he will be able to reflect on the points that noble Lords have made and come forward with the Government’s own amendments to take account of those points, some of which are exceedingly logical and good and would enhance the Bill and what the Government are seeking to achieve.

The amendments raise key issues in relation to the police driving provisions. The aim of the clause is not to allow the police to drive without safeguards or scrutiny but to ensure that they are not criminalised for what they have been trained to do. Amendment 19 raises a reasonable question about national standards for competent and carefully trained drivers. As we will come on to in Amendment 20, there are various levels of training, and the number of fully trained officers will differ between forces. However, that does not alter the fact that there is a need to set out in more detail and with more clarity what a nationally recognised standard will look like. Will it be covered in the training that officers receive, and is the Minister confident that the Bill makes it clear what a national standard means? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, posed a reasonable question, which was answered well by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about what that means between different police forces such as Devon and Cornwall and the Metropolitan Police, and how they do things. Those are the sort of points that the Minister needs to raise.

On Amendment 20, the idea of a reasonableness defence is an issue that officers are concerned about, which was raised consistently in the Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, did not mention that quite as much as he did the national standards, but we need to ask how this whole area of reasonableness, which is used in the courts, stands with respect to this Bill. It is difficult to craft an answer, but the issue goes back to the level of training that an officer receives, which varies from force to force. It not only varies from force to force, however: the level of training varies within the police force.

Let me give an example for clarity. If I am a member of the public on the street, I know generally what a response car looks like, and you would expect a response car driver to have had the highest level of training, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said he had received in the past. It is about a proper response driver responding to emergencies or pursuing a vehicle. That is what you would expect if you were a member of the public. But not all police cars are response cars. What about a police van? I have seen police vans driving after people. What happens then?

Is this level of training—police pursuit—available only to response drivers? What about other drivers, or will they be compared to the normal standard? This takes the police into very difficult territory. I have not been a serving police officer like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I can only imagine that if someone said, “Officer, a mile down the road there is a really serious incident”, and a police van driver did not put the blue lights on and go down there, and as a consequence a murder or a rape took place, people are not going to say, “That officer driving the police van was quite right; he did not respond in the way that he should because he has not had the proper level of training”. This takes us into difficult territory, and it is also about the reputation of the police.

What happens, however, if the police van driver does that, but then crashes or injures somebody else? I thought that was the point of Amendment 20 and the reasonableness defence: you would expect the police officer driving the van to do that, even though they are not trained to the level of the police response driver. From the Bill, however, it is not clear whether the police van driver—I am making that up as an example—would be able to do that and respond to an emergency situation with the same level of protection that the Bill tries to give to a response-level trained driver, whereas the public would expect them both to respond in the same way.

That is the point of the reasonableness test that Amendment 20 seeks to drive into the Bill. I hope that I have given a clear enough example of the sort of situation that might arise for a police officer, whether operating in Devon and Cornwall, the middle of London, Sheffield, Cardiff or wherever.

This is the point of the Committee: it drives that level of detail that seeks to clarify the way the legislation is drafted—as we saw with the previous grouping, where there is a real problem around the phrase “police purpose”—but also tries to ensure that the legislation delivers in both its wording and its intention.

On the drafting of the Bill, can the Minister just give us some assurance that officers with basic police driver training would be protected if they found themselves having to respond to an incident that ideally required a higher level of training? That is a fundamental question and if I were a police officer driving a vehicle that was not a response vehicle, I would want to know whether I was protected by law in the way that we seek to protect other drivers.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that, if the police officer is driving more aggressively than he is trained to do and he has an accident, he is in trouble because he is driving outside of what he is trained to do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

May I speak? Sorry, I do not know what the rules are. That is the point that I was making, and I am asking the Minister: what is the answer? The public’s perception of that would be, frankly, dreadful from the police point of view. There is an issue here for the Minister to resolve and to clarify for the police forces and the people driving.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

I have two points: one is that we are in Committee, so we can speak as many times as we like, and the other is that the public may have to be disappointed, because the police officer may not be able to do everything that the public expect. The public could complain; there is a complaints procedure, so the police could explain why they could not respond in the way that the public would expect.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Thank you, my Lords—I have enjoyed this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for setting out the rationale for his amendments and I thank all other noble Lords who made a contribution. I was particularly delighted to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is such a supporter of the traffic police, although I found her relish for car crashes a little upsetting.