Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to my noble friend for wrongfooting him. I arrived about 15 minutes ago, having sent a message to the Front Bench earlier today that, since my train was going in slow motion because of wind on the line, I was likely to be here rather late. My message was to thank the Government, the Home Office and my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who took on board the criticisms that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made. I have the privilege of being chair of that committee for the next three weeks only—so the Government can rest in peace afterwards.

We made a large number of recommendations and, to be fair, the Home Office took them on board and my noble friend has accepted the majority of them. That is a good message to send to other departments. It goes to show that, when my committee makes recommendations, they can be accepted by the Government, because they do not sabotage the Bill or stop the political thrust of what the Government are trying to do. At the very most, our most extreme recommendations may mean that some bit of delegated powers legislation might be debated for 90 minutes in the affirmative procedure—never under the negative, unless it is prayed against—which will mean a Minister having to host a debate for 90 minutes. It will probably be a Lords Minister, because the Commons possibly will not bother. So it can be done.

The only substantive comment that I wish to make is about my noble friend using the standard excuse—although he used it in a more delicate way—that we hear from most departments when they refuse to accept that the guidance to which one must have regard should be seen by Parliament. Some departments take a much more arrogant attitude and say, “Oh, well, we publish lots of guidance every year and we consult the stakeholders and experts, so we don’t need to trouble you people in Parliament who know nothing about it”. That is not quite what they say, but that is the thrust of it. I had a tremendous success last week, when I had a two-word amendment accepted by the sponsor of the Bill and the department—and those two words were “by regulations”. The clause said that “guidance that must be followed will be issued”, and we inserted the words, “by regulations”. That made no difference to the practical effect of the Bill.

The other justification that we often hear is, “Oh, we issue a lot of guidance, you know, and it has to be changed rapidly”. I am not suggesting that it applies to this guidance, but a lot of that is simply not true. If the guidance has to be changed rapidly, it has to be printed and issued. All we say in that case is “Put it in a negative regulation which Parliament can see, and only those who have an interest, or the Opposition, may move a prayer against it”.

We issued a strong report last week, and so did my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. My committee issued a report complaining strongly about disguised legislation, where the Minister not only has power to issue his own regulations but they are called “directions”, “protocols” and so on. That is disguised legislation. We also complained about skeleton Bills. If you want to see a skeleton Bill, look at the new Bill on healthcare, where there are about 150 delegations. The Bill has no guts—that will be filled in by legislation later.

I hope that my noble friends will speak to the Department of Health and the Ministers there. I have no idea what our committee will report when we look at the Bill next week, but I suspect that we will be highly critical of the contents. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, coming from the Home Office, can tell the Department of Health to follow our example. If we in the Home Office, one of the mightiest departments of state, can accept the vast majority of suggestions from the Delegated Powers Committee, other departments can do so too, knowing that their legislation is safe. We do not sabotage it and we do not try to stop it. We have no political input on the merits of the Bill; we leave that to noble Lords here. However, we do care about inappropriate delegations.

Having read the riot act on that, I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for the considerable changes that they have made on this—and I just wish that they would go a wee bit further and accept the last one.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, just illustrated the value of his service as chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the House should thank him for—but in the knowledge that his successor is unlikely to give the Government peace because this is an area where all Governments need to be brought up to the mark. His more wide-ranging report last week illustrates this, and I will refer to it briefly in a moment.

It is good to be in the part of the Bill where the Government have listened, both to the Delegated Powers Committee and to the House itself, where voices were raised, particularly on the issue of the publication of the strategy on serious violence for which provision is made in the Bill. It really does not make sense for a strategy to exist which is not published and which therefore cannot be the subject of accountability. That was quickly recognised by Ministers at the Dispatch Box here. They have acted in accordance with that and I very much welcome that. They have met the objections to publication by specifying areas in which there must be a bit more care about what should not be published because of adverse consequences for the public interest, over things such as custodial institutions and other ways in which material could be released in a way which would be damaging to the general public interest.

That is one area where I am pleased that the Government have listened. I am also pleased that in a number of respects, if not quite all, the Government have responded on issues of laying guidance before Parliament and on providing a parliamentary procedure, either negative or affirmative, for some of the instruments. I will say in passing, however, that laying guidance before Parliament is a bit of a formality. Unless Members of one House or the other find a way of debating it—it is a little easier in this House than the other—laying it before Parliament does not achieve anything practical, whereas having a procedure in the House, defective though the negative procedure is, is much more useful. In most respects that request has been met.

Producing a list of previous legislation which was deficient in this respect is not a persuasive answer to the challenging issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Statutory Instruments Committee. It is generally recognised that there is a serious deficiency which has been allowed to grow as the scope of legislations has extended. Things which have the practical effect of legislation have become more numerous, but Parliament has not developed effective procedures to ensure good scrutiny and to ensure that the neo-legislation is in workable and legally sound form.

As the committee said in its wider report, if, because of modern conditions, Parliament is being asked to accept new ways of legislating, it is surely right that the Government must stand ready to accept new methods of scrutiny and of being held to account. So, like others, we take the view that there is now an urgent need to take stock and rebalance their relationship. This Bill has arrived at the beginning of that very important process, but it is encouraging that Ministers have at least responded in a number of key respects, and I welcome that.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords have already comprehensively covered the ground, and I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and to the Government for listening to that committee, and to the concerns that were expressed in Committee, and by the Constitution Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

We are concerned that simply laying guidance before Parliament is not sufficient. It should be by regulations, as the noble Lord has said. However, we are pleased that the Government have listened to some extent and we support these amendments.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

May I add a more hopeful note? It has been wonderful to see this Government bring forward Professor Ormerod’s work on the Sentencing Code and bring it on to the statute book, and in this Bill—this is a good point—the code is being amended rather than there being any new proliferation of legislation. So one ought to say thank you for that.

However, the Sentencing Code shows the problem. I do not know how often the Minister looks at it but it is a fiendishly complicated set of sentences that we have accumulated over the years. Although we have seen a lot of criticism of the 2003 Act, I would say in its defence that an awful lot of thought was given to it. It may not have been quite right, and there was one area which has gone badly wrong. As I complimented one side, I now compliment the other: when we looked at the 2012 reforms to sentencing, a huge amount of thought went into that. A lot of sentences that were thought to be apposite were brought forward or modified, but at least there was some thinking.

We have now reached a stage where we need—on, I hope a nonpartisan basis—to think again. Is it too complicated? The answer must be yes. Have we got the sentencing regime right in terms of its outcomes and, equally importantly, its cost and whether the money can be spent better? There can be no better mechanism for that than a royal commission. I would hope that the initial thoughts of those who drafted the manifesto could be taken forward, at least in that respect. I would hope, though maybe I am being optimistic, that when it was all laid out what an awful state our sentencing regime is in, logic would prevail and we would see some reform. However, that is just an expression of hope by a person who is not a politician.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. My support goes back to the time when I served as chairman of the Justice Committee in the House of Commons. I became utterly convinced that the absence of a coherent strategy or policy for the use of custody and other disposals was extremely damaging and distorted the use of resources in the criminal justice system to an amazing extent, leading to unsatisfactory outcomes in reducing reoffending and many other respects.

If I had not been so convinced, even during the passage of this Bill we have seen further examples of an incoherent approach to sentencing. In the course of the Bill, it was announced in the press, but by a Minister, that there would be a mandatory life sentence for the manslaughter of emergency workers. The Daily Mail reports today that that provision will be included in the Bill, although it is not clear to me how that can be accomplished—it is not even in the government amendments tabled for today—but that would be a very significant change.

We are also told that the Government intend to provide for an offence of the theft of a pet animal with a sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. So you could get up to five years for stealing your neighbour’s cat by putting out a dish of milk and some bread because the cat seems a little underfed because your neighbours do not look after it as well as you think you would. It is absurd that we should get into that situation of sentence inflation—and there will be sentence inflation, as my noble friend referred to, because then you have arguments where legitimate organisations come to us and say, “There should be at least seven years for this offence because you get five years for stealing your neighbour’s cat.” That is how the parliamentary and political side of sentence inflation works. My noble friend has pointed to how it influences the judiciary as well, when minimum sentences cast—I was going to say “a shadow” but, rather, a particular colour of light on decisions about offences that fall short of the maximum sentence.

The reason I think a royal commission would be appropriate—notwithstanding the belief of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that no one in government would take any notice of what it said, whoever had appointed it—is that there are different kinds of issue that need to be considered. Some are philosophical issues and issues of principle while others are practical, but they all affect sentencing and all lead to the misuse of custody, either in its extent or, in some cases, in its use at all, when other disposals could be more effective in preventing crime and dealing with offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I first acknowledge my place in devolution history. For the purposes of the footnote in that history, I should say that the place where I gave my evidence was, as I recall, the Grand Hotel on the front in Llandudno.

The noble and learned Lord asks whether they would listen. That is really the purpose of this amendment: a royal commission is and should be listened to. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, there must be thinking about sentencing—thought must be given to the policy that the Government are pursuing. I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and I do not doubt that his Government are pursuing these various courses, policies and whatever he is talking about, but they are failing. He said that they are building capacity to meet demand, but who is demanding? I can tell him that people in north Wales are not demanding to go to the sort of prisons that exist, with their dreadful conditions.

As I understood it, the noble and learned Lord conceded the need for a royal commission to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on his utopian idea that there should be a separate agency for the mentally ill. We can pursue that idea in all sorts of ways.

My noble friend Lord Beith referred to the most recent offence to be created—stealing a cat, for which you get five years. But he got it wrong. It is not stealing, because you do not have to prove an intent permanently to deprive; all you have to do is show TWOC—taking away the cat without the consent of the owner. Do not give Tiddles from next door some milk without telling your neighbour, or you might get five years for it.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I remind my noble friend that it is worse than that. All you have to do is induce the animal to accompany you.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

All those people yearning for a cat now know where they stand with this Government.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. For decades we have listened to him in this House with great attention on all these subjects. He has been a beacon in the attempt to reform prisons, with his great knowledge in having been Chief Inspector of Prisons over that period. I am grateful for his support for this amendment.

My noble friend Lord German pointed to the way in which sentencing has inflated over the years. I know from personal experience—from the other side of the Bar, not in the dock—that that has happened and continues to happen.

The Minister said two contradictory things: that there is no departure from the manifesto commitment for a royal commission and that the Government are already pursuing these ideas, so a royal commission is unnecessary. It is still their manifesto commitment, but they think that it is unnecessary. With these ideas being pursued in some secret corner of Whitehall, are there public hearings? Is there a call for expert evidence? Is there a publication of the results? It is not the same thing as a royal commission at all; it is simply the Government squirrelling away in the background, trying to make the best they can of the resources they will put to it. What we need is this royal commission acting not for any political reason but trying to put a real problem right. I will return to this matter, while asking to withdraw the amendment, when we get to Report.

--- Later in debate ---

There are times in life when the law must be challenged from outside Parliament—even, indeed, outside the courts. That must apply in particular where the law is frozen in aspic. Survival of the planet is one such issue, and I have nothing but admiration for those who go about their endeavour in a spirit of peace. Any amendment to the law in today’s amendments must reflect that freedom.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in my name. By way of preface, I must say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his masterful presentation of the case against what the Government are doing, and of the observations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The noble Lord mentioned proportionality. Proportionality was central to the case of Ziegler and others in the Supreme Court back in July. I thought the wording it used, as reported by the Times, summed up my feeling in a way:

“Peaceful protest was capable of constituting a ‘lawful excuse’ for deliberate physical obstruction of the highway … There had to be an evaluation on the facts of each case to determine whether any restrictions on the protesters’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful association was proportionate. There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life caused by the exercise of those freedoms.”


I do not think the Government like the concept of proportionality, and the whole direction of these clauses—and those in the subsequent group, more recently tabled —illustrates that.

The amendments I have tabled are probing one feature, which is the word “unease”. They are Amendments 297 and 307. In the new subsection that the Government propose, which is about

“the noise generated by persons taking part in”

an assembly, there is reference to the impact it may have on “persons in the vicinity” of that assembly

“if … it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity”.

A court is going to have some fun working out what the characteristics are of people likely to be in the vicinity, but that is another part of the story.

The subsection also applies if

“it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease”.

That is a very low bar indeed. It made me think of the Governor of the Bank of England speaking to the Treasury Committee a couple of weeks ago. He said that he was “very uneasy” about the inflation situation¸ but not so uneasy that he sought to raise the interest rates. In his view of vocabulary, “uneasy” is clearly nowhere near the top at all.

It is the purpose of numerous protests to make people uneasy; I have been made uneasy by both the intensity and subject matter of protests. The protests that went on in Glasgow were designed to make people feel uneasy about what is happening to the planet, and to do so in ways which might even more directly make them feel uneasy, by noticing that such a large number of people are involved and making such a lot of noise.

However, it has always been so. John Wesley and his followers made people uneasy, by preaching loudly out in the open air and singing loud hymns. It was to make them uneasy about the life they were leading and trying to cause them to change their way of life. I have been confronted in my time by all sorts of demonstrations and protestors, putting forward views which I sometimes agreed with and sometimes did not. But being even seriously uneasy does not seem any reasonable basis on which to restrict the rights of protest. I simply cannot conceive that the Government have any other intention than to make protest much more difficult, even in circumstances which most people, on reflection, would accept were reasonable.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beith]

298: Clause 55, page 47, line 33, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is based on a DPRRC recommendation. It removes the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations defining “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” and “serious disruption to the life of the community”, thereby requiring these terms to be defined on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, this is a simple and straightforward amendment implementing the wishes of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It deals with the “serious disruption to … an organisation” and “serious disruption to the life of the community” provisions, which, instead of being set out in the Bill, are to be the subject of a statutory instrument, a draft of which, or parts of which, have already been circulated by the Government.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was quite clear that the affirmative procedure for a statutory instrument is wholly inadequate to anything as important and fundamental as this. An affirmative statutory instrument, being unamendable and debated only once in each House, was not in its view adequate. It considered that the definitions of the expressions in question should be added to the Bill to give Parliament the opportunity fully to debate them. It said:

“We consider that the definitions of the expressions ‘serious disruption to the activities of an organisation’ and ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’ are of such significance that they merit the fuller scrutiny afforded to Bill provisions and should therefore appear on the face of the Bill.”


It is not clear to me that it was necessary to have got into this territory at all. There is a complex potential conflict with ECHR provisions which will probably lead to the matter being resolved in the courts in any event. For us to allow Ministers to proceed by statutory instrument on a matter which could have such a profound effect on how these provisions operate in practice does not seem wise. I therefore strongly support the views of the Delegated Powers Committee and believe that either the Government should go ahead and include these provisions in the Bill or they should take this element out altogether.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, we have not had time yet for all of us to read the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or, for that matter, that of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose paper is entitled Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive. I have read that, but I did not get round to the first.

We have to support our committees—that is why we have them; they are cross party. This is a tiny amendment of significance. The amendment does not propose any interference with the power to address the problem of serious disruption. It is not intended to address that. The submission is that the way in which the legislation is drafted, in Clause 55(4) and Clause 56(6), is completely unnecessary to enable justice to be done in whichever way the Government think it is appropriate for justice to be done.

Secondly—this is a bit naughty of me—I think the provision reflects a growing constitutional wheeze, what I call the “blank cheque wheeze”. It is this: the Executive tell the legislature to please legislate, and the legislature legislates—and, when it legislates, the Executive then tell the legislature what the legislation means. That is a blank cheque that we are being asked to give in these clauses.

As to the words, I know that it is quite late at night and so I shall be short, but do any of us here not understand two simple English words—“severe disruption”? I mean, come on, even the lawyers among us cannot think of a lot of differences. “Severe”, “serious”—get out your thesaurus. They are simple English words, and the two words put together make a perfectly clear picture of what is being addressed and sought to be protected.

This is unnecessary and a wheeze. We really must not allow the Executive to start treating this way of legislating—called in more elegant terms tertiary legislation —by saying, “We’ll tell you what it means when we get around to it”. The Secretary of State has started to tell us what it means. The place where we should be told what it means, if it does not mean what it says—and I think that it does mean what it says—is in a definition clause within the primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Beith (LD)]

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

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

Amendment 298 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“authorised directly by an Act of Parliament”

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

[Lord Beith (LD)]

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

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

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

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

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

“authorised directly by an Act of Parliament”

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

[Lord Beith (LD)]

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Overall, these are outrageous proposals with serious consequences in terms of police powers, infringement of civil liberties and the creation of new offences, introduced in a wholly unacceptable way at the last minute at the Committee stage in the House of Lords, where the other place will have very little, if any, time to properly consider them, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. These government amendments must be withdrawn and seriously reconsidered.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend. When I came to this House, I was told that this was a place in which, line by line, we scrutinise legislation to make sure that, whatever its policy objectives, it is properly constructed, workable law. I was also told that we pay particular attention to things that have not been debated fully in the Commons. I came here happily, ready to try to assist in that sort of thing.

That is not what we are doing now. These proposed new clauses have not been considered by the House of Commons. They were not sent to us from the House of Commons; nor were they tabled when they could have been. In her introductory remarks, the Minister did not give us any indication as to why we are getting them at this stage and why they were not tabled in the Commons, or at least at the beginning of Committee stage in the Lords. It seems to me that political considerations have taken precedence over all considerations relating to making good law and, indeed, policing protests satisfactorily and effectively.

This is so unsatisfactory because this group of proposed new clauses covers at least five fundamental issues, to which my noble friend referred. The new offence of locking on is a completely new offence with no obvious precedent in existing law; it therefore requires pretty careful consideration, first, as to whether it is necessary and, secondly, as to what the consequences will be of having on the statute book provisions as bizarre-sounding as some of them are. I will not trouble the Committee with the details at this late hour, but locking on and

“being equipped for locking on”

are wholly new elements being introduced into our criminal law.

Then we have “search without suspicion”. We succeeded in excising that from other, earlier legislation, but here it comes back to us. Subsection (7) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 319F states:

“A constable may, in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (6), stop any person or vehicle and make any search the constable thinks fit whether or not the constable has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying a prohibited object.”


Should the person concerned, perhaps out of the sort of anxiety that has arisen after the Sarah Everard case, feel that they are being asked to do something unreasonable, perhaps even dangerous, they must remember this:

“A person commits an offence if the person intentionally obstructs a constable in the exercise of the constable’s powers under section (Powers to stop and search without suspicion).”


This is very discomforting language to find in legislation.

That is two fundamental issues already. Then we have “obstruction of highway”. The Minister explained the reason for one of the odder provisions in that proposed new clause, but it has a rather bizarre effect. Let us say that the road outside your house has been blocked for a week or two by some public undertaking supposedly carrying out works, although you never see any workmen there or anything happening; that is a fairly regular occurrence. You decide with your neighbours to protest about this, so you all gather in the road and effectively block the road, perhaps to the machine that the company has at least brought along. If the company says to you, “You’re blocking the road”, and you say, “No, you’re blocking the road. We’re protesting at you blocking the road”, you are still committing an offence because you are blocking the road—even though it is already blocked. That is what is provided for under this legislation. Sometimes one must look at the secondary consequences of legislating badly.

Then there is “Obstruction etc of major transport works”. I tried to assist the Minister in making this a little clearer; she was very helpful in producing the note that she had been given. However, again, there is a slightly bizarre effect. Having announced that we will not get the rest of HS2 to serve us in the north but, in various other ways, lines will be improved and some bits of new railway will be put in, none of that is covered by any of the provisions referred to, as far as I can see—not that the people of the north are eager to stop rail improvement. Perhaps some of these issues will not arise but, again, if you try to write legislation around an individual set of circumstances that has arisen, you get into trouble. You turn into general law attempts to deal with very specific cases.

Then we come to the issue to which my noble friend Lord Paddick gave particular attention: serious disruption prevention orders. Here, again, I must refer to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It described the orders, some of their features and the fact that they can be imposed on people who have not been convicted of any offence—the orders are not limited to the prevention of criminal conduct, either—by saying that the proposed new clause

“allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to chief officers of police and chief constables in relation to SDPOs, including … identifying persons in respect of whom it may be appropriate for applications for SDPOs to be made”.

I am genuinely puzzled as to what that means or what the consequences will be.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 263, to which I was pleased to attach my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling it and providing a very clear introduction. I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the amendment as well. I should declare, since we are doing lots of declarations, that I am a supporter of the Institute of Customer Service “Service with Respect” campaign, to add to our collection of organisations involved in this process.

We have already covered this in some detail, so I want to add just a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the fact that legislation is being introduced in Scotland already, and it is important to stress that part of that is an aggravating offence—if people have been trying to enforce the law, for example on the purchase of alcohol, et cetera. That makes the very important point that we are asking retail workers, who are often very low-paid and may not have much in the way of protection, to enforce the law for us, and that needs to be acknowledged in the law.

A lot of this discussion has focused on how difficult things have been during the Covid pandemic, and that is obviously true, but there is a really important figure from the British Retail Consortium in 2019, so it is pre-pandemic. There were 455 incidents a day, up 7% on the previous year, so this is not just some Covid situation that might disappear should the pandemic disappear; this is a long-term trend. A recent survey, also by the British Retail Consortium, of 2,000 workers over 12 months showed that 92% had experienced verbal abuse, 70% had been threatened and 14% had been assaulted. This really has to be described as an epidemic—it is a word we hear a lot, but this is definitely very much the case.

I also stress—here I may depart from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—that changing the law, which has been called for on all sides of the Committee, does not excuse employers from doing more, particularly large employers who have the resources to provide security. By the nature of my job, I very often travel late at night, having been speaking at a public meeting and catching the train home. I go into chain stores on those occasions and I often see very young workers, sometimes on their own, looking and clearly feeling very exposed and very much in danger. I think that often they do not have adequate security.

There is also a question to be asked, particularly of employers, about ensuring that these workers are paid properly, treated with respect and have decent conditions. That will affect the way the whole of society look at these workers, and, I hope, the way they get treated.

Amendment 263 is important. As has been widely said, there is a huge amount of support for it, but it does not excuse employers from doing much more. I also say that while I understand the impulse behind Amendment 264, I do not think that is the way forward. We know that we have a record prison population—it is something we have debated in other parts of the Bill—and that prison is not working, so just to have the knee-jerk reaction of, “Let’s make the sentences longer”, is not the answer. There has to be a recognition of the fact that these crucial workers need protection through some form of Amendment 263.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on my own behalf and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is unable to be with us this evening. My noble friend attached her name to Amendments 79, 89 and 107. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has given us a very clear and complete explanation, so I just want to reflect on the average age of noble Lords, as we sometimes do. We really have to work quite hard to understand the way in which people’s lives are entirely contained in their phones, particularly younger people, and what an invasion it is to have that taken away.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred in particular to Amendment 107 and the situation of immigration officers. I have heard a number of accounts of what has been happening to people arriving, particularly from Calais and surrounding areas, on boats in the most difficult and fearful situations. For people who wish to contact family and friends to say they are safe or wish to make some kind of plan for the future, to lose their phone in those situations or have it taken away is very difficult.

We have not had an introduction to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to which I have attached my name. We have had expressions of concern from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and we really would like to hear from the Minister the justification for that. By oversight, I failed to attach my name to Amendment 104. As a former newspaper editor, I think we really need to get a very clear explanation of how confidential journalistic material could be covered under these circumstances. We have grave concerns about freedom and the rule of law in our society, and this is a particularly disturbing clause.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important part of the Bill and an important and large group of amendments. I want simply to concentrate on the two amendments to which the noble Baroness has just referred: Amendments 103 and 104, which are in my name.

Amendment 103 follows concern from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its recommendation to deal with what it describes as an inappropriate delegation of power. The Bill leaves to regulation all provision about the exercise of the powers in Clauses 36(1) and 39(1) to extract confidential information. Regulations are to implement a code of practice, which will itself be consulted on. The committee believes these powers should instead be in the Bill, and I agree. However, I part company with the committee in its view that these powers, once put in the Bill, should be amendable by affirmative instrument. That is the creation of a Henry VIII power to modify primary legislation by means of secondary legislation, so I do not think it is the best way to handle the matter. Of course, one of the problems is that, whereas the process of creating the original material, if it is in the Bill, is an amendable process, that does not apply to any subsequent regulations which would definitely alter the material on the face of the Bill.

The Government’s argument for their approach—leaving it all to regulations—is that this is an area of fairly rapid technological change. It might become possible, for example, to extract a relevant subset of information rather than having to extract everything. However, that could be covered in the drafting of the Bill. A major change in the future would justify parliamentary legislation. If the technology really does change the situation dramatically, both Houses could deal with the matter by primary legislation.

I am sure there is a potential compromise under which the Bill could state more extensively and clearly the general principles governing the extraction of confidential information. It already does so to some extent, but if it did so further, it would narrow the range covered by regulations, if they are necessary at all.

It would also be helpful if the Minister could explain why the process to revise the code of practice from time to time would be subject to the negative procedure only. If the regulations which embody the code of practice are going to be changed significantly, why should that be only by the limitations of negative procedure?

Amendment 104 is quite different. It probes the provision in Clause 41(2)(a) covering confidential journalistic material with the meaning given in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The regulations are intended to cover the extraction and use of such material. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s position and intention on confidential journalistic material and to what extent it is to be treated differently from protected material, such as legal privilege. We need that to be spelled out more clearly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the broad thrust of all these amendments and in particular to support the most important one of all, which is Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to which I have added my name.

To begin by way of balance—both political and gender balance—I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who could not be here this evening but who has been incredibly supportive of women’s groups and has been alive to this issue for some considerable time. She was sorry not to be able to be here.

A few years ago, when I was sitting where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, sits now, I had the privilege of questioning a former Justice Minister about the legal basis for the practice that women’s groups and victims of sex crime had called digital strip searching. Many in your Lordships’ House groaned as if I was using an inappropriate phrase. To be honest, I did not get a lot of support from many noble Lords on any side of the House, but it is better to be late to the party than not come at all.

I say that to the Minister because there is no competition for sainthood here. All sides of this House are a little late to this issue, but we now have this precious opportunity to grapple with it. I do not think any of these formulations are perfect yet. I am so grateful to the Minister for discussing this with me recently, among other issues, as even the progress that the Government have made so far in these amendments can be improved.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his very simple Amendment 80, has done something incredibly important. I questioned the previous Justice Minister about the legal basis for taking these phones at all. Imagine that you have been raped or assaulted and have been through this horrific experience, but you do what a lot of people find very difficult to do—we know about the attrition rates—and go with a friend to the police station, to be told that you now have to hand over your device. The Minister will forgive me, but we discussed this together recently. If I were to hand my phone over, I am not just handing over an old-fashioned telephone; I have so many dear friends and family members whose numbers I do not know, because I click their names to call them. I have just been raped, but I am now giving away my contact with these people, my diary, my shopping lists and my browser, which shows all the mental health and other websites I have visited. Let us be clear: this is probably more intrusive than searching my home. The Minister will forgive me, but we discussed this together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Perhaps I should have said “alleged victim”; that goes to my noble friend’s point. Each case is different, but usually the remedy is through the court process and it is established where the perversion of justice might be taking place. But I thank my noble friend for his point about the alleged victim.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I hope I am right, but surely there is nothing in the provisions being carried through now that would in any way relieve the prosecution of the obligation to disclose to the defence any material that came from this process and was potentially of assistance to the defence.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I think my noble friend is making a point about where the tables are turned and the alleged victim is not the victim at all.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we expect that the duty will provide the right legal basis for improved multiagency working and draw in the correct set of partners to prevent and reduce serious violence effectively. We think it is right, however, to ensure that there are means of securing compliance should a specified authority refuse to play their part—in other words, in adherence of the duty. So we have included provision within Clause 17 for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to secure compliance, should a specific authority, educational institution, prison or youth custody authority fail to meet the requirements of the duty. For publicly managed probation service providers, prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres or secure colleges, existing mechanisms can be utilised through the relevant Secretary of State to ensure compliance with the duty.

As a result of the amendment to this clause just agreed by the Committee, the Secretary of State must now obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before issuing a direction to a devolved Welsh authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said.

I now take the opportunity to address concerns that were raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick —it was only on Monday night, but it seems quite a long time ago. Let me be clear: a direction can be issued only to certain specified or relevant authorities and not to individual front-line professionals or practitioners. In addition, directions can be issued only in respect of certain duties, as listed in Clause 17(1). On information sharing, no directions can be issued in relation to the exercise of the powers in Clause 15 or any regulations made under Clause 9, which enable but do not mandate information sharing. I hope that answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

Directions can be made by the Secretary of State in relation to a failure to discharge the mandatory duty in Clause 16 to share information with a local policing body. As I have said previously, the purpose of Clause 16 is to enable the local policing body—that is, the PCC and their equivalents—to request information in order to assist the specified authorities and monitor the effectiveness of local strategies. To reiterate—this may assist the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—this power would not enable the Secretary of State to directly compel an individual doctor, teacher or social worker to disclose personal information. Additionally, any direction given to an authority cannot require a disclosure which would be in breach of the data protection legislation. If an authority refused to comply with the direction due to concerns that doing so would breach the data protection legislation, the Secretary of State could apply for a mandatory order and the court would then determine the question. I hope that this clarification is helpful.

I assure the Committee that, in any case, we expect these powers to be seldom used and utilised only where all other means of securing compliance have been exhausted. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, in order for this duty to be effective, a system needs to be in place to ensure that authorities comply with the legal regulations we are proposing to help prevent and reduce serious violence.

A direction by the Secretary of State may require the authority in question to undertake specific actions in order to comply under the duty, and directions may be enforced by a mandatory order granted on application to the Administrative Court in England and Wales. Further detail on this process will be set out in statutory guidance, which will be subject to a public consultation following Royal Assent. I commend Clause 17 to the Committee.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Can the Minister explain subsection (5), which sets out that

“the governor of a prison, young offender institution or secure training centre”

is not covered by these provisions?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the direction power is not available in relation to probation services provided by the Secretary of State or publicly run prisons, youth offender institutions, secure training centres or secure colleges. As I said earlier, existing mechanisms will be available to ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the duty. In addition, as I have already outlined, the Secretary of State must also obtain consent from Welsh Ministers before exercising the direction power in relation to a devolved Welsh authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 75 I will speak also to Amendments 76 and 77 in this group, all in my name. We now come to offensive weapons homicide reviews and there are two points I will make initially. The first is to point to the evidence that the provisions on this in the Bill were probably, quite rightly and properly, about knife crime. Chapter 2 is about offensive weapons homicide reviews and, predominantly if not almost exclusively, homicides involving offensive weapons are knife crime offences.

Secondly, as with Chapter 1, the primary motive of the Government is to produce the illusion of doing something when the changes in the Bill have little practical beneficial effect. As we argued in Chapter 1, the Government’s approach potentially does more harm than good. Amendment 75 is a probing amendment to ask the Government why, just as Chapter 1 should have strengthened existing crime and disorder partnerships, this chapter should not strengthen the already considerable and comprehensive powers of coroners, if this were necessary, rather than creating a new and separate legal duty to conduct offensive weapons reviews—other than the obvious explanation that the Government could point to it and say they had done something about knife crime.

For every death where the cause of death is still unknown, where the person might have died a violent or unnatural death or might have died in prison or police custody, a coroner must hold an inquest. Clearly every qualifying homicide, as identified by Clause 23, and every potential qualifying homicide, even if the Secretary of State changed the definition by regulations, as subsection (7) allows, would be subject to a coroner’s inquest. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides coroners with a duty to make reports to a person, organisation, local authority, or government department or agency, where the coroner believes that action should be taken to prevent future deaths. All reports, formerly known as rule 43 reports, and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner. In most cases, the Chief Coroner will publish the reports and responses on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. Coroners are very powerful members of the judiciary. Attendance at a coroner’s court takes precedence over an appearance at any other court, if a witness is required to attend more than one court at one time, for example.

Can the Minister tell the Committee what consultation took place with coroners before this chapter was drafted? What was their response? What additional benefit would an offensive weapons homicide review have over a coroner’s report? If benefits were identified, what consideration was given to the coroner, rather than a review partner, being given the power to order a homicide review? Can the Minister also explain what happens if one of the review partners considers that none of the conditions in Clause 23(1) is satisfied, but another review partner considers that the conditions are met? Does the review take place despite the review partner’s objection, and, if it does, does the review partner that objected have to participate if it does not believe the conditions are met? Is there a hierarchy of review partners? So, if the police believe the conditions are met, must the review go ahead? And if a clinical commissioning group believes that a review should go ahead, but the police do not believe the conditions are met, does the review take place and do the police have to participate?

The Government may say that all this will be set out in regulations, but the existing provisions in the Bill are a shell of an idea, where this Committee is left to guess what actually happens in practice; what a qualifying homicide is, because that can be changed by regulation; who the review partners will be, because that will be set out in regulations; and what happens if there is disagreement among review partners about whether the conditions are met.

We already have child death reviews, domestic homicide reviews—on which more in a subsequent group—safeguarding adult reviews, and, now, offensive weapons homicide reviews. With the Bill as drafted, how many of the sadly too many knife crime deaths a year will be subject to a review? According to the Bill, factors that decide whether a review is necessary may include, for example, the circumstances surrounding the death, the circumstances or the history of the person who died, or the circumstances or history of other persons with a connection with the death, or any other condition the Secretary of State sets out in regulations. How many reviews do the Government believe will have to be conducted each year by our overstretched police, local authority and health services? I ask the Minister to not give the answer: “It depends what conditions are contained in the regulations”.

Amendment 76 is intended to ensure, as with the serious violence duty, that professionals, including doctors and counsellors, are not forced to disclose sensitive personal information that is subject to a duty of confidentiality, unless, in exceptional circumstances, it is in the public interest to do so, and in accordance with existing policies and practices, although I accept that these may be less stringent in the case of information regarding the deceased.

As before, Clause 31 says that review partners must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, but there is no mention of parliamentary scrutiny of such guidance. My Amendment 77 requires the guidance to be laid before Parliament to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move Amendment 75.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to support my noble friend in questioning whether the processes outlined in this clause should be altered so that they protect the procedures that we already have and have had for a thousand years, to use the system of coroners to investigate unexplained deaths of a wide variety of types. Instead, we have the offensive weapons homicide review added to the system. It is unclear how this will relate to the coroner’s duties in a situation where such a death has occurred, because the coroner’s duties do not disappear because we have legislated this system into existence. I hope the Minister will clarify this point.

There was a time when the Government might have felt that the system of coroners was not quite up to the job in some areas. We had problems over the years with inconsistencies in standards of coroner, but considerable attention has been given to that in recent years and I think the system now has much more consistency about it. We are not subject to some of the problems of particular localities which existed in the past. The creation of a Chief Coroner, although in a more limited way than originally envisaged, I think has helped in that process.

It seems to me that the Government are not saying that the coroner system cannot handle this, they are simply legislating for an additional mechanism, because that seems to be a good, visible response to a problem that we all acknowledge is a serious one. But serious problems are not solved by creating more structures and processes, particularly in the circumstance where what is a qualified homicide appears to be so uncertain that the Government have to keep to themselves powers to change the meaning of qualified homicide while the legislation remains in force.

I am very unpersuaded about this system and certainly would like to know what coroners are supposed to do when they find themselves presented with the likelihood of such an inquiry taking place and may have their own duties in respect of the death that has taken place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

It is important that we get this matter clear. If the coroner has begun an inquest, does that inquest fall within the limitation that the Minister has described, which would preclude a homicide review being started while that inquest is going on?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. As I understand it, yes it does. I expect I will be corrected by my officials later.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I am happy to consider Amendment 77 further, but I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that Amendments 75 and 76 are unnecessary and that, accordingly, he is content to withdraw Amendment 75.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Before my noble friend does that, can the Minister clear up a mystery? I remain mystified. A person has been stabbed, but no charge has been laid against anyone because the police have not yet identified who might have carried out the stabbing. The coroner opens and adjourns an inquest in those circumstances. What happens then? Is the coroner told that he must close down this inquest? Does the coroner continue to co-operate with the police in the normal way, as they bring to him the information that they have gradually obtained about how this death might have taken place? In passing, I should say that it would be wrong to give the impression that coroners do not, as a matter of course, draw lessons from public bodies and others which arise from any death that they report on.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I thought that I had made it clear, and I apologise for obviously not having done so, but no, OWHRs are not precluded by a coroner’s inquest.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I support Amendments 33 and 41 in my name. I intend to speak only once on the whole Bill, unless the spirit moves me via my noble friend the Minister’s reply. She will know that there were quite a few recommendations in the Delegated Powers Committee report, but I have put down just these two amendments.

If the Committee will permit, I will take the first minute to run through the more general criticism we made of the delegated powers in the Bill. I will not return to this subject again. In our response to the memorandum, we said:

“We are surprised and concerned at the large number of inappropriate delegations of power in this Bill … We are particularly concerned that the Bill would … allow Ministers—and even a non-statutory body—to influence the exercise of new police powers (including in relation to unauthorised traveller encampments and stop and search) through ‘guidance’ that is not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny … leave to regulations key aspects of new police powers—to restrict protest and to extract confidential information from electronic devices—that should instead be on the face of the Bill; and … allow the imposition of statutory duties via the novel concept of ‘strategy’ documents that need not even be published.”


That is the subject of the amendments before us today, and that is what I shall major on.

We concluded our general introduction by saying:

“We are disappointed that the inclusion of these types of delegations of power—on flimsy grounds—suggests that the Government have failed when preparing this Bill to give serious consideration to recommendations that we have made in recent reports on other Bills.”


That is fairly scathing condemnation, and it is a bit unfair on noble Lords in this Committee and from the Home Office, because they had nothing to do with drafting these provisions.

We all know how it happens. The Bill has come from another place; Ministers who have served in the Home Office and other departments will honestly admit this. I dealt with about 20 Bills when I was in the Home Office. The Bill team and civil servants would come in and say, “Here’s the Bill, Minister”, and we would look at the general politics of it. Then they would say, “Oh, by the way, there are some delegated powers there. When you’re ready to come back again to tweak it, we can deal with it”. We all said, “Yes, jolly good; carry on”, but never paid any attention to them. I am certain that the Bill team in the Commons—the civil servants drafting the Bill—did not, and nor did the Commons Ministers. It came here and this bunch of Lordships have got a bit upset, and I suspect others will too.

I say to my noble friend the Minister to go back, as other Lords Ministers have to do, and explain to Ministers in the Commons and the Bill team—the Bill team thinks it is sacrosanct; it has drafted it and does not like people mucking around with it—that that bunch up the Corridor will want some concessions. My political antennae tell me that on Report there may be a few amendments made by noble Lords on all sides—amendments I might not approve of at all—but if we want to get somewhere, the Commons should make concessions on this, because they are really sensible.

Before I comment on the two amendments, I will give one example. We criticise the provisions on serious disruption; I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, wishes to remove them from the Bill. We say in our report that the Government have been able to draft a half-page statutory instrument describing serious disruption. If the Government can draft it there, stick it in the Bill, for goodness’ sake, and then it can be amended later.

That is enough general criticism. I apologise to my noble friend as she has to take it all the time, but other departments have been infinitely worse in some of their inappropriate delegations. The Home Office is not the worst offender.

Clauses 7(9) and 8(9)

“make provision for or in connection with the publication and dissemination of a strategy”

to reduce serious violence. Clauses 7 and 8 allow collaboration between authorities and a local government area

“to prevent and reduce serious violence”,

including to

“prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions”—

all good stuff.

Under Clauses 7 and 8, a strategy

“may specify an action to be carried out by … an educational authority … a prison authority … or … a youth custody authority”,

and such authorities are under a duty to carry out the specified actions. However, there is no requirement for such a strategy to be published; instead, the Secretary of State has the power, exercisable by regulations subject to the negative procedure, to

“make provision for or in connection with the publication and dissemination of a strategy”.

This power would appear to allow the Secretary of State to provide that a strategy need not be published if she so wished, or even to decide not to make a provision about publication at all. That does not make sense to us. My committee is

“concerned that the absence of a requirement to publish means that a strategy can have legislative effect—by placing educational authorities, prison authorities and youth custody authorities under a statutory duty to do things specified in it—but without appropriate transparency.”

We therefore recommend

“that the delegated powers in clauses 7(9) and 8(9) should be amended”—

that is, tweaked a wee bit—

“to require the publication of any action which is specified in a ‘strategy’ as one that an educational authority, a prison authority or a youth custody authority must carry out.”

That is a minor tweak—actually, so are many of the other things we recommend. We may be scathing in the report, but we are not asking that fundamental bits of the Bill be deleted or rewritten completely; we are merely asking for more transparency. Putting more things on the face of the Bill will save the Government rather a lot of grief in this House later on.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment, following that of the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I commend the committee’s work in general, with more general comments on this Bill and the two amendments to which it has given rise in this particular case.

I am not persuaded of the merits of having a statutory structure for local co-operation strategies. I am strongly in favour of local co-operation; it should be happening everywhere to deal with serious violence and many other problems in the system. Where that is done and works well—as it has done in youth justice, to some extent—it demonstrates its value pretty quickly.

However, this is a statutory scheme; because of that, statutory obligations are created and there must be accountability for them. I am in a charitable mood so I will suggest that, if not exactly careless drafting, this did not anticipate the question, “What if no provision is made for publication of the strategy?” That is what the two amendments deal with. Perhaps the Government are undiminished in their intention that the strategies will be published and will therefore be accountable to the communities in which they are deployed but, as the Bill stands, it is weak on that point and it would be much better to make it clearer.

This is not by any means the worst delegated power issue to arise in the Bill—I am intrigued that the Home Office got off lightly tonight, with the chairman of the DPRRC calling it not the worst department. However, in this particular case, it needs to be made much clearer that, if statutory obligations are created and strategies have the force of statute, they must be published and must be accountable to the communities in which they operate.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I think I gave some other examples, though, of things that do not necessarily qualify as police pursuit but are still none the less covered by this: emergency response, armed vehicle interventions and so on. I thought those would cover most of the noble Lord’s points. I take his point, obviously, that if you are under surveillance, you do not necessarily know that anybody is there—that is the whole point. At some point, that could turn into a pursuit; I suppose it depends on the specific circumstances. But I do take his point.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister if I heard him correctly? I think that, in the early part of the remarks he read out, he used the phrase “pursuit or emergency.” That appeared to me to be quite a helpful definition of what we are talking about here, and excluded things that were neither “pursuit” nor “emergency”. Could that wording not be what the clauses should be based on, and was it not helpful of him to use it in the early part of what he said?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I think I—

[Lord Beith (LD)]

He might be going to answer that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, there are some valuable things in the Bill but they are dwarfed by things that really should not be in it. Parts of the Bill are dangerous to our civil liberties while other substantial parts add nothing useful to existing law.

I shall concentrate on just four points. To start with, there is the sheer extent of the Bill, which has been referred to. As a former member of the Constitution Committee, I am enthusiastic about its report pointing out that Bills of this size and complexity impede proper legislative scrutiny by Parliament.

Secondly, the Bill makes bad law. Take the deeply objectionable attempt to reduce rights to protest, in apparent defiance of the European Convention on Human Rights. This gives enormous subjective discretion to police officers—who, so far as I am aware, have not asked for that kind of subjective role—and introduces the concept of “unease” in relation to noise, in the wording

“persons of reasonable firmness … may … suffer serious unease”.

I like to think that I am a person of reasonable firmness and indeed I am caused serious unease by loud noise in shops, restaurants and various places, but it does not usually represent a reason why someone else’s civil liberties should be seriously abrogated. In this context, we really have to avoid such badly worded legislation.

Thirdly, I turn to the Delegated Powers Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has spoken about. The committee says in its report:

“We are surprised and concerned at the large number of inappropriate delegations of power in this Bill.”


There is the accretion of ministerial power to rule by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State will have power by regulation to prescribe what constitutes “serious disruption”, in Clause 55, and will have the Henry VIII power to alter the meaning of “qualified homicide” and to amend this Act accordingly. The extraction of confidential information from telephones is inappropriately left to regulations that, in the view of the committee, should be in the Bill itself and therefore amendable. The committee also pointed out that the Bill will

“allow the imposition of statutory duties via the novel concept of ‘strategy’ documents”

that in some cases may not even be published at all. There are also the usual wide powers of consequential amendment by regulation, which currently seem to be slipped into many Bills as standard.

Then there is the direct and indirect effect of the Bill’s sentencing provisions and the wider sentence-inflation effect that they, and the rhetoric of longer sentences, will produce. The impact assessment reckons that there will be 700 more prisoners, with 300 new prison places immediately required. Paragraph 43 speaks of

“a risk of having offenders spend longer in prison and a larger population may compound overcrowding (if there is not enough prison capacity), while reducing access to rehabilitative resources and increasing instability, self-harm and violence”.

We have seen that happening in prisons, and if we have 700 more prisoners it will get worse.

Measures to bring about longer sentences are wide in their effects because it is not merely about the inclusion of a long sentence for a particular offence; it is all the campaigns that then follow, saying that the sentence for something else is not enough—“That’s all you get for stealing someone’s pet rabbit”, for example—that could happen if the Government go ahead with this suggested amendment. There is a knock-on effect, and it affects the judiciary. There is no escaping the fact that long periods when much is talked about longer sentences have an effect on what judges do in sentence determination.

This move to longer sentences is a major reallocation of resources, unsupported by any evidence that it is the most effective way to keep the public safe either by deterrence or by rehabilitation during custody. These are resources that are desperately needed to fight crime and tackle the problems that lead people into crime in the first place. It really is time that we corrected this trend.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord may not have been here for an earlier question, but I said that the Home Secretary is very keen to speak to the families before publishing our response on this duty.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, senior police officers, who abhor the corrupt relationships with criminals that are fully illustrated in this report, still find it difficult to accept that they may be guilty of institutional corruption. Is it not important to make it clear that the culture of cover-up, delay and denial is indeed a form of institutional corruption, which makes space for criminal corruption and leads the victims of corruption to believe that there is neither point nor prospect in trying to challenge the police about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said, the Home Secretary has written to the commissioner to set out her expectations and has explained that she is taking personal responsibility to make sure that progress is made on the issues outlined in this report. She has also brought forward a review of the IOPC and its governance structures, as well as asking HMICFRS to consider how it feels it can best focus on the issues raised.

Law Enforcement Agencies: Duty of Candour

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I did not hear all of my noble friend’s question, but I think he was talking about police officers being prosecuted, suspended, forced to resign or sacked. Between December 2017, when the police barred list was established, and 2020, a total of 117 officers and 18 special constables from the Metropolitan Police service were dismissed and added to the police barred list. The College of Policing breaks this down by category, but there is no single category for corruption. We do not intend to collect data on police suspensions, as that is obviously a matter for individual chief officers, but I can tell my noble friend that the Home Office is currently amending its data collection on police misconduct and we intend to publish data in greater detail from this autumn.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, although the duty of candour has to be organised in ways that do not compromise either national security or police intelligence gathering against serious crime, is it not very important to move in this direction? We have had police officers making a small industry out of selling information to the media, while other police officers were withholding information essential to discovering what had happened in this dreadful murder case.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What is also important to recognise, as I said to the noble Baroness, is how things have changed. It is 34 years ago; that is an awfully long time for the family to have had to wait, but there has been the introduction of a code of ethics for the police, and Section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005 makes it an offence to commit acts that have the effect of distorting, altering or preventing evidence being given. I understand that this is obviously not a statutory inquiry, but clear standards of professional conduct for the police have been introduced in relatively recent years.