Operation Conifer

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, why perpetuate the existence of these allegations by refusing to establish the independent review we have all called for for years? No one has ever produced a shred of evidence. The allegations are based on the early ranting of Carl Beech, a proven liar now languishing in prison. What possible benefit is to be gained by leaving on the table accusations that tarnish the reputation of a former British Prime Minister, over which historians will argue? I simply cannot understand the Government’s hesitation, and neither can anybody else I speak to.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord obviously makes a good point, and I have just committed that we will certainly look into this. But, as he will be aware, there were a number of forms of scrutiny during the investigation. There was an independent scrutiny panel to ensure proportionality. There were two reviews by Operation Hydrant, in September 2016 and May 2017, which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. There was a review in January 2017 by HMICFRS, as it was then, into whether the resources assigned to the investigation by the Home Office were being deployed in accordance with value for money principles. In November 2017, the PCC referred two matters concerning the then chief constable to the IOPC. This has been extensively looked at by external and independent bodies already, but we will, as I say, look into the possibility or viability of other reviews.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, is not the news that the Northern Ireland Assembly is amending the law on anonymity in rape cases to be greatly welcomed? If the law in England had been similarly amended, it is highly unlikely that the injustices in the cases of Sir Edward Heath, Lord Leon Brittan, Sir Cliff Richard, Mr Harvey Proctor and Mr Paul Gambaccini, and in the Janner case, would ever have arisen. Is it not time to reopen the debate on pre-charge anonymity in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord is quite right that these new laws have come into force in Northern Ireland, but the authorised professional practice guidance on media relations, issued by the College of Policing, already makes clear that the police

“will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime, other than in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so”.

In May 2018, the college updated this guidance to make it clear that it applies where allegations are “made against deceased persons”.

Former Chief Constables: Gross Misconduct

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is contributing remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, why can we not have anonymity in accusations of sexual offences, particularly rape? They are a special category of criminal offence where the reputations of the innocent can be destroyed, even by chief constables like Mike Veale. The law is unfair, and I have raised this issue repeatedly over the years. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on his unrelenting campaigning on this issue; the House is deeply indebted to him.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously that strays well outside the remit of this Question and the department, but I will make sure that the noble Lord’s reflections are taken back to the appropriate people.

Police: Employment and Discipline

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to revise the (1) employment contracts, and (2) disciplinary regulations, for police officers.

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

My Lords, police officers hold a unique position in society and are therefore protected by a unique set of terms and conditions, which are enshrined in legislation. Regulations are updated regularly following consultation with policing stakeholders, and the Government have no current plans to revise that approach. In October, the Government announced a review into police officer dismissals, ensuring that the system is fair and effective at removing those who are not fit to serve.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, following Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s powerful expression of concerns over the handling of police misconduct allegations and the need to sack the worst offenders—as well as similar comments from the formidable noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on the need for early dismissals, and, more recently, the shocking revelations from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the six-stage, year-long police officer dismissal process—can the Minister explain why the whole police disciplinary procedure cannot be reviewed in line with those of other professions? With the worst cases, dismissal should come first. More widely, there should be a speedier appeal procedure.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have just said, we announced a review into that in October. The terms of reference are under active discussion and will be published in the near future. I will just correct the noble Lord: there are not six stages to the dismissals process; there are actually only three in the performance regulations, but officers can appeal against the outcome of those stages. Accelerated hearings are often missed, but if there is sufficient evidence of gross misconduct and it is in the public interest for the individual to cease to be an officer without delay, the chief constable can hold or chair accelerated misconduct proceedings.

Police: Appointments in PCC Offices

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in light of the recent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she revealed the six-stage process governing disciplinary actions against police officers—I was shocked—should not the process be revisited in the way she and others are now suggesting? How can there be confidence in systems that protect rogue police officers, and their pensions, delay justice with prolonged processes, offer extended leave and rewards—[Inaudible]—Mike Veale, with further appointments? The Daily Mail should be thanked for its excellent reporting of these matters.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it might help if I go into detail on the barred and advisory lists. Since December 2017, any officer, special constable or member of police staff dismissed is placed on the police barred list, preventing them rejoining policing in the future, and that includes PCC offices. Any officer who retires or resigns during a gross misconduct investigation, or before an allegation comes to light, is placed on the police advisory list. PCCs must consult the advisory list before appointing an individual, although inclusion on the list does not necessarily preclude employment. It will be for the PCC to assess.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am privileged to be a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and these amendments—there are at least seven in my name—are based on its reports, so the Government have been fully warned of what we are going to say, because they have had those reports before them. This group of amendments is probably the substance of a whole Bill in themselves and it is very difficult to keep one’s remarks short. I should just say that I picked up a message about us on my phone, saying “Everyone looks knackered”. I just pass on that comment from the wider public.

Before I get to the substance of the amendment, I should make it clear that I have been on a large number of demos and protests over the years, even against Labour Governments. The most recent ones have been on child refugees in Parliament Square, and outside the Foreign Office in support of Richard Ratcliffe, who was on a hunger strike to try to get his wife out of imprisonment in Iran. I should add that, when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, there were demos against me for what I was doing or failing to do. So I have had some experience of demos on all sides. I do not know whether that gives me much authority to speak, but at least I have had the experience. When I talk about not making noise on demos, I speak from the experience of having made a lot of noise on demos, because it is the thing that keeps one going and that attracts attention.

Let me get to the substance of this. I repeat that I am speaking to at least seven amendments, but I will try to be as brief as possible. The first is to do with the trigger for imposing conditions on processions and assemblies in England and Wales. A lot of what I want to say is about the trigger and the adverse effect that it will have. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR guarantee the right to peaceful protest, and any interference with non-violent protest is therefore an interference with those convention rights. That is absolutely clear and it is why the Joint Committee has taken such a firm stand.

Any restriction on the right to protest that targets noise is a particular concern, as it strikes at the heart of why people gather to protest. Larger and well-supported demos are much more likely to be louder. Therefore, restrictions on noise could disproportionately impact demonstrations that have the greatest public backing, which would be a perverse outcome.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights heard from witnesses who suggested that restrictions on protests based on the noise they produce pose

“an existential threat to the right to protest.”

One witness told us that protests

“lack value and are pointless if they cannot be heard and seen”.

I speak from experience. Perhaps not the demo outside the Foreign Office recently in support of Richard Ratcliffe’s hunger strike, but every other demo that I have been on has been about noise and having our voice heard, whether it is has been on marches or in Parliament Square when we have talked about child refugees. This is absolutely fundamental.

The second aspect is that the new noise trigger proposed in the Bill would allow for restrictions on peaceful protest to prevent the intimidation or harassment of “persons in the vicinity” suffering

“serious unease, alarm or distress”.

That is significant. Preventing intimidation and harassment, which are already criminal offences, would fall within the legitimate aim of preventing crime and disorder. However, the inference with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, which refer to people being involved in making noise that causes alarm or distress—particularly noise that causes “serious unease”—can reasonably be justified only on the basis of

“the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The proposed new noise trigger also puts considerable responsibility on the police officers responsible for the decision whether to impose conditions. The conditions on public processions and assemblies represent a restriction on the right to protest that is not necessary in a democratic society. The amendment would remove the proposed new trigger.

I also refer to the effect of the trigger on a protest by a single person, as is specifically itemised in the Bill. Clause 61 extends the proposed new trigger based on noise generated by protest to cover protest by a single person, in addition to assemblies of two or more or processions. What can a single person do to disrupt good order? A single person would still be exercising their right to free expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. For the reasons given above in respect of Clauses 55 and 56, the Joint Committee on Human Rights opposes the introduction of the new trigger as an unjustified interference with this right. We also noted in our report that

“a single protester has less ability to produce seriously disruptive noise than a large assembly or procession.”

That is pretty evident, is it not? It should be added that existing criminal offences dealing with whether the noise crosses the line and becomes harassment or a threat to public order are available and easy to use against a single protester.

I turn to the question of awareness about the conditions that may be imposed and how they will impact on demonstrators. The Bill seeks to prevent demonstrators who breach conditions imposed on processions and assemblies avoiding prosecution on the basis that they did not know that such conditions were in place. However, it goes too far, sweeping up those who breach conditions of which they were genuinely and innocently unaware.

Amendments 309 and 312 would prevent this, ensuring that only those who know that conditions have been imposed on a demonstration or avoid gaining knowledge of the conditions deliberately and recklessly can be prosecuted for breaching them. A breach of conditions imposed by the police may justify a prosecution, but the potential penalty for a non-violent offence of this kind must not be disproportionate. An overly severe penalty may have a chilling effect on those considering exercising their right to protest. For this reason, Amendments 311 and 312 would remove the increased sentences proposed in the Bill, which seems a moderate suggestion indeed.

I will move on to the proposal to penalise people who “intentionally or recklessly” cause “public nuisance”. The Bill introduces a new statutory offence of

“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,

which was previously an offence under common law. The committee reported:

“We are seriously concerned that, as currently drafted, the public nuisance offence may be used to criminalise non-violent protest that would be protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. The offence would catch not only individuals who cause ‘serious annoyance’ or ‘serious inconvenience’ to the public but also those who create a risk of causing serious annoyance or serious inconvenience.”


It went on:

“It is not entirely clear what behaviour the Government and police are trying to tackle with the new offence”


that would not already be tackled by existing legislation. That runs through a lot of the difficulties we have had: the existing legislation is there, but the Government simply want to take it further.

The report says the new offence runs the risk of being

“used as a catch-all offence because of the wide range of conduct it covers.”

The JCHR has

“serious concerns about the new offence being included in Part 3 of the PCSC Bill, especially given the broad drafting which would catch non-violent protest. Protests are by their nature liable to cause serious annoyance and inconvenience and criminalising such behaviour may dissuade individuals from participating in peaceful protest.”

A protest must make an impact; it must be heard and seen, otherwise what is the point of a protest? Yet the Government seek to penalise what is a legitimate democratic activity. Under the current law, as I have said, there are a plethora of offences already available to the police.

The report says:

“The essence of the public nuisance offence is causing harm to the public or a section of the public. However, as drafted, the offence is confusing and could be read as meaning the offence is committed where serious harm is caused to one person rather than the public or a section of the public. This does not achieve clarity for either the police or protesters. The current drafting also risks the offence being broader than the common law offence it replaces.”


I am going to move on quickly. There needs to be a balance of rights between protesters and the public. I think that is accepted in the European Convention on Human Rights but is not something that runs through the drafting of the Bill. The report says:

“Current rhetoric around protest … focuses on discussions about ‘balancing’ the rights of protesters against the rights of members of the public … Whilst protests may cause inconvenience”—


and I fully accept that they may—

“they are also fundamental in a democratic society to facilitate debate and discussions on contentious issues and this is of value to the public generally … Whilst the ECHR provides that protests can be limited in order to protect the rights of others, any restriction of the right is only lawful if it is both proportionate and necessary.”

It is my contention that, throughout the Bill, the measures are not proportionate and many of them are not necessary.

Public authorities, including the police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the right to protest lawfully and a positive obligation to facilitate peaceful protest. This amendment would introduce a specific statutory protection for the right to protest and sets out the negative and positive obligations of the state in relation to protest. I beg to move the amendment—and I hope we are not all looking knackered.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer, and I have not been briefed to speak; I am only following my instinct. I have not intervened earlier in these proceedings because it is difficult remotely to pick up on the cut and thrust of a debate on issues that command strongly held views. This debate will inevitably draw on strong feelings this evening.

I will concentrate my remarks on one amendment, Amendment 293, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has spent a lifetime promoting issues of freedom and liberty. The amendment as currently worded, along with associated amendments, is an attempt to weaken provisions in parts of the Public Order Act 1986. My noble friend is well aware of my reservations, in that while Amendment 293 would further restrict a public authority’s power to limit the right to protest, it would still leave the door open for the prevention in advance of disorder, as referred to in subsection (3)(b) in the proposed new clause in the amendment. As I understand it, both would remain in breach, chargeable under highways and public order legislation.

It is at that point that I part company on the amendments. For me, liberty and freedom in this context must stand at the heart of the law. I am talking of the freedom to demonstrate, to object and to peacefully oppose—indeed, simply to say, “No, not in my name”. Under the provisions proposed for the Bill, they are all to be further subject to the approval of a statutory authority in the form of a mere mortal police officer acting on behalf of the state. As I understand it, it is a police officer who would be deciding on whether a liberty, in the form of a demonstration, could be deemed to be excessively disruptive potentially—yes, potentially. I can never accept that.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Lords Chamber

Obviously, this puts a very heavy responsibility on handlers, and their selection and training is a crucial ingredient, but provided that it is successfully achieved, it is much the safest and best way to ensure that the vital source of intelligence that has protected our country in so many different ways over the years is not lost.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will confine my remarks on this Bill to the thrust of Amendment 46. I declare an interest as a former member of the ISC from 1997 to 2001, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who has just spoken and who equally supports Amendment 46. I am not a lawyer, but I ran with the hounds in the Commons during the Peter Wright affair of the 1980s. In doing so, I developed an interest in authorisation procedures, which I followed up as a member of the ISC.

As I read it, it is uncertainty over compliance with the Human Rights Act, the ECHR and the implied powers therein that is driving legislative reform. The problem is only aggravated by the inclusion of a raft of new bodies, some presumably with marginal quasi-professional experience of covert action. My problem is the inadequacy of post-event assessment. An annual report from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is not enough. An onerous system of prior authorisation is too much. We need a robust, uncomplicated procedure of prior scrutiny, not authorisation, where the rights of individuals and the state are fully recognised.

I place on record the statement from Andy Erlam, the principal complainant in the Tower Hamlets v Rahman case, which exposes deficiencies in the current CHIS-bases system: “An attempt was made to recruit me as a CHIS some time ago. I had taken a successful election petition against the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. The police officer who met me was from the Metropolitan Police. He said he was employed by the Department for Professional Standards but that he had a national role in supervising CHISs. He asked me to recruit CHISs, and documentation exists to confirm that this meeting took place. I learned that the officer who had authorised the approach to me was the same officer in charge of the two Metropolitan Police criminal inquiries into Mr Rahman, and that the commission and the City of London Police inquiry all found insufficient evidence. Yet the campaign in Tower Hamlets which I led exposed extensive corruption. I suspect that the police were compromised in some way. I experienced police harassment and an attempted arrest in the middle of the election High Court trial, an election case which I later won. If the use of undercover operations can be justified in some cases, I do not think they should ever pervert the course of justice. I believe this approach was an attempt to compromise me. Police officers who I know informally state that the use of CHISs leads to lazy policing, and it is never clear whether the police are using the CHIS or the CHIS is using the police. The current proposal to extend legal immunity to cover CHISs carrying out criminal activities is a matter of considerable concern.”

Erlam is questioning a whole CHIS-based system. I do not, but on accountability he is right. We need a far more robust system of prior evaluation and scrutiny. In this debate, we have heard demands for prior judicial authorisation, judicial commissioners, the use of prosecutors and judges, and a prosecutorial approach with warrants, and the Government are saying no—although there was a slight movement from the Government in last week’s debate, a hint at reconsideration. Anyhow, whatever the position, the Government will have their way, with their 70-seat Commons majority, so a compromise must be found, and I propose a compromise.

I have two alternatives. First, I propose that the remit of the chairman of the ISC be extended in the way that I have previously suggested during ISC debates, to give him or her prior access to intelligence-based CHIS operational activity—a prior scrutiny role, not an authorising role—in the handling of all CHIS. It would mean restoration of the prime-ministerial lock on ISC chairmanship appointments. Under this proposal, the chairman would be able to release CHIS information to the ISC only where it is agreed to do so with the agency heads, including the wider list of agencies currently being proposed.

It could be argued that to include the Food Standards Agency et al could be stretching the duties placed on the ISC chairman, and potentially in a much limited form on the committee, far too far. I say that as we simply do not know the volume of CCAs. If that was a problem, the Speakers of both Houses could be asked to nominate an agreed alterative person or persons, depending on the volume of CCAs, to carry out the function. I suggest a Member of this House, their role being prior scrutiny of CHIS operational activity, not authorisation. I believe that we have people in Parliament who, as former chairmen of the ISC or other respected Members of this House, are as worthy of access to information in the deepest recesses of the various intelligence communities et al as any agency head.

Another way forward could be to appoint a scrutiny group comprising either two or three persons as part of the same prior scrutiny process. Such a group should comprise at least one member of a legislature of high standing—again, appointed by the Prime Minister but ratified by Parliament. In my mind, a member of a legislature must—I repeat “must”—be party in one form or another to whatever process is selected. In the USA, the defense appropriations subcommittee is, by law, according to Wikipedia, “fully and currently informed” of intelligence activities. This includes being kept informed of covert actions and any significant intelligence failure. I am not even asking for that. Wikipedia goes on to say that, under certain circumstances, the President may restrict access to covert activities to only the chairman and vice-chairman of the committee. I will settle for that. I am asking, in compromise, for a lesser form of accountability under a less onerous arrangement.

Under my second way forward, the second and third persons could be judiciary-drawn and/or departmental accounting officers. To me, the appointments under both options are particularly important in this new world of heightened tension, international trafficking, greater sophistication in fraud and organised crime. We cannot underestimate these dangers.

Equally, we need a commensurate increase in accountability. After over 40 years in public life, I have learned that transparency, by its very nature, influences conduct and thereby, to some extent, control to varying degrees. I support the thrust of the amendments that extend accountability, if not the detail, as proposed in the Committee today.

[Lord Bach (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, whose expertise in this area is well known and has been for many years.

There are many profound constitutional issues in the Bill, and many of them have been debated in this long group of amendments. I speak in support of Amendment 76, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. My noble friend and I agree that this is not a profound constitutional amendment but we argue that it is important none the less.

Noble Lords will recall the highly effective speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt last week in which he argued that police and crime commissioners should have some standing in relation to the annual inspection of police forces by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and not just be excluded from playing any part. Of course, I must declare my interest as the elected and full-time police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I will try not to repeat my noble friend’s arguments but will attempt to persuade the Committee to reach the conclusion that, as with all inspections of a police force, it is essential that a police and crime commissioner plays some part.

Why do I say “essential”? Many noble Lords will remember the passage through Parliament of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The then coalition Government, in setting up elected police and crime commissioners in place of appointed police committees, were clear that the role of a police and crime commissioner was to represent the public and hold the force to account for its effectiveness, its efficiency and, importantly, its legitimacy.

Licensing: Closing Time

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, there is a general acknowledgement that the sector is struggling with an hour of its business being cut. The scientific basis is that the number of infections is going up, and the Government, through their engagement with SAGE, are thinking of the best ways to tackle the virus while keeping the economy going as best they can.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly support whatever legal arrangements are in place, but regarding 10 pm breaches, may I suggest that the authorities have powers, which will take a week or two to settle in, not only to fine, clear and close premises, but to require from premises and personal licensees and their dedicated premises supervisors a written assurance on future compliance with the law, and in default to subject them to a form of aggravated breach penalty payment—in other words, an increased fine?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that this system is in place. The fines do go up, from £1,000 to £10,000. It would be an unusual licensee who wished to have several £10,000 fines.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the total cost, including the associated costs, to date of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

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

My Lords, the Government set up the independent inquiry to shine a light on the institutional failings of the past, to give a voice to victims and to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is operationally independent and responsible for the management of its own budget. Since it was established in 2015, it has made significant progress. The cost of the inquiry to the end of March 2020 was just over £137 million.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

Are we not now witnessing in the IICSA inquiry a macabre, quasi-criminal trial of the dead? As the Minister has said, it has already cost over £130 million at a time when the country is spiralling into debt, and its chairman is costing nearly a quarter of a million pounds a year. In the Janner case the accusers are there for the compensation, while the lawyers milk the system. Is not the simple truth that a well-motivated inquiry doing excellent work has now nearly run its course, with little further to add to the sum of human knowledge on institutional child abuse? Its job is done.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord’s first question as to whether we have embarked upon a macabre criminal trial of the dead, I think that the House would agree that the inquiry is there to learn the lessons of the past so that no more children have to go through what historically some of those children had to. I agree with him that at some point the inquiry will come to an end. It expects its public hearings to conclude by the end of 2020.

Domestic Violence

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally understand that point. This has been on our radar, and we have engaged with police and communities. Neighbours can set up silent codewords with potential victims, which is one way that people can communicate with each other in these very stifling times during lockdown. That will certainly help the police, who are engaging with high-risk victims and perpetrators during this time.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, my question has already been asked by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark—it is the subject of a piece I wrote in the Times a couple of weeks ago. May I dispute the Minister’s answer? She said that she does not think it would be very helpful if people were to sit side by side. I think that is exactly what we want. We want victims and abusers to be sitting side by side when the message comes over that what is happening is wrong, and when giving information and advice.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did not denounce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy; I pointed out some of the unintended consequences of stirring up tensions when a household might already be in a very tense situation. I by no means dismiss the noble Lord’s point.