Public Order Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 80A is in my name. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. I welcome the Government’s commitment at Second Reading to introduce zones around all clinics in England and Wales to ensure that women are able to access their legal right to abortion without harassment or intimidation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, this clause was added in the other place by a majority of Members across seven political parties.

This clause will protect the women who have made the decision to have an abortion and now wish to access the service in peace and privacy without somebody trying to tell them to rethink what is often a very painful, personal and difficult decision. My amendments are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Watkins, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. They have been tabled in response to the debate at Second Reading to provide clarity around the description of these zones and to tighten the definition of what constitutes interference.

Amendments 80A, 82A and 82B would change the term used in this clause from “buffer” zones to “safe access” zones. This terminology better reflects the purpose of the zones—to ensure that women can safely access care. It would also bring the description of the zones into line with that used in the law in Northern Ireland and in the proposals in Scotland, as well as around the world, including in Australia and Canada. Amendment 84 would clarify the intent behind the drafting so that sites such as multiple-use buildings and hospital grounds which contain an abortion clinic are also included in these zones.

Amendments 87 and 93 would tighten the description of banned activities, so that they very clearly apply only to people interfering with abortion services and not to any other protests, such as some of those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Following concerns raised at Second Reading about the breadth of these banned activities, Amendment 91 would remove “or otherwise expresses opinion” from the list.

Amendments 95, 96 and 97 would add exclusions to the safe access zones. Amendment 95 covers everybody attending a clinic with a service user with their consent. This is often a friend or a loved one—someone who anti-abortion literature sadly and inexplicably refers to as “an accomplice”. Amendment 96 would exempt any activities taking place,

“inside a dwelling where the person affected is also inside that or another dwelling.”

Amendment 97 would exempt activities taking place inside a church or other,

“place of worship where the person affected is also inside that”

place of worship. I hope that noble Lords and the Government will agree that, taken together, these amendments address many of the concerns raised at Second Reading and provide clarity and a tightening of the definitions in the clause.

I turn to other amendments in this group. I am afraid that I do not agree that there needs to be a “reasonable excuse” defence in the clause. This is about harassment and intimidation, not protest. I do not believe there is a reasonable excuse for the harassment or intimidation of women seeking to access their legal right to medical care. They are often in a vulnerable situation, having made a difficult decision—a decision which is theirs to take.

Amendments 81, 83 and 86 concern the universal application of the zones. Universality was debated in detail and agreed in the other place. It is a core requirement of this clause. Removing it would undermine its very point, which is about protecting women before harm occurs.

A method already exists to apply for locally based public space protection orders, or PSPOs, but their nature means that evidence about impact has to be gathered locally and for a prolonged period. They require women to be subjected to abuse and intimidation for months—even years—before they can be introduced. They place a burden of proof on these women, who are in a vulnerable situation. They are expensive and complicated. The process also requires significant time and resources from providers and local councils, which often do not have resources to spare. This is why, despite regular protests at clinics across the country, we have so few PSPOs—only five, despite regular protests at more than 50 clinics. This creates a patchwork of protection, so that women across the country face a postcode lottery as to whether they will face harassment when they go to a clinic. Once a clinic is successful in getting a PSPO, groups simply move to another site and the whole process begins again.

The introduction of “intentionally or recklessly” by Amendment 82 would likely make it harder to implement and enforce the clause. It would increase the likelihood that this measure would not be adequate to deliver on its aim.

Amendments 88, 89 and 90 relate to the list of banned activities that the previous amendments in my name seek to clarify and narrow. They would leave intact the other essential aspects of advising and persuading. “Seeking to influence” is at the core of the amendment inserted by the House of Commons. It is needed to cover the activities we are seeing outside abortion clinics around the country. The list in Clause 9 is based on these reported activities and their impact, which many women accessing care at these clinics report as being the most distressing.

Finally, Amendments 98 and 99 would remove Clause 9 entirely and instead require the Home Office to undertake another review into activities around abortion clinics. A review would undermine the vote in the other place to support the immediate addition of Clause 9, disagreeing with the clearly settled will of elected Members. Another review would delay stopping the harassment of women around abortion clinics.

Since the last review four years ago, protests have evidentially increased. BPAS’s database of abortion clinic activity currently includes nearly 3,000 accounts of service users, those accompanying them and clinical staff. Half of those have been received since the Home Office’s last consultation closed, and this is in no way an exhaustive list. Understandably, only a small proportion of women affected are willing and able to share their experiences when asked.

Since the review, the number of hospitals and clinics in England and Wales that have been targeted has increased by 20%. Just today, an abortion clinic in Doncaster has reported having people outside for the first time in years. We have seen an increase in co-ordinated activities. Tactics have evolved, groups are actively recruiting and are very well funded, often by American groups emboldened by Roe v Wade, which are now looking to sow division on our shores. Largely American-funded campaign groups with deep pockets are opposing our local councils when they seek to bring legal orders to protect women from harassment.

It is not right that this influence impacts the right to access healthcare in this country. As the former Home Office Minister, Victoria Atkins, said in the other place, new, immediate law is needed because of the failure of existing legislation to address the problem. Some 100,000 women a year in England and Wales have to attend an abortion clinic that is targeted by anti-abortion groups, which cause harassment, alarm, and distress to these women. Some 50 sites have been targeted in the last three years. It is clear that the existing law is not enough and this piece of legislation is needed. We must safeguard a woman’s right to access healthcare.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 98 and 99, to which my noble friend Lady Sugg just referred. We need to stand back. Our constitutional responsibility in this House is to scrutinise, amend and, where necessary, push back on legislation that is unwise or uncompliant. We have particular leeway to do this about an issue not included in the Government’s election manifesto.

Clause 9, which makes it an offence to interfere with

“any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services”

is fundamentally flawed and should never have been added to the Bill. It is quite simply not about public order. It chillingly polices access to the idea contrary to pro-abortion orthodoxy that there are other ways to approach this most difficult of decisions.

Those pushing the clause took advantage of parliamentary maelstrom at a time referred to, to me, by one very seasoned, senior MP in the other place as “discombobulating daily turmoil”. The imposition of nationwide buffer zones would have been whipped against when it came up previously in the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. However, this time the whipping confusion was exploited and it was made the subject of a conscience vote—the first in relation to public order in 203 conscience votes since 1979.

We need to be clear-eyed about the significant majority for this new clause, which was accepted in the other place. Many MPs spoke and then acted on their unwillingness to let women seeking health services be harassed and intimidated, but the very many abstentions indicate that this was not straightforward. The law already protects women’s rights to access abortion facilities without hindrance, harassment and intimidation.

More fundamentally, the inaccurate assumption that harassment and intimidation are the hallmarks of vigils undermines the arithmetic of the other end. Hence my Amendment 98 calls for a review of current law and practice outside abortion clinics before making a major incursion into civil liberties. The 2018 Home Office review, which we have heard much about, found that people on vigils, not protests, are typically there to offer information and support, including but not exclusively if women want to continue with their pregnancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Would the noble Lord address the point that regulations are unamendable?

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for the intervention. I would have thought that regulations are amendable by a debate in this House.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

They are not, and they never have been.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

These regulations would allow for sunset and review provisions to be included, so the legislation can cease to have effect if appropriate, as I said.

I was talking about how regulations that require consultation with key stakeholders and need approval by both Houses improve on the current public spaces protection order system, which allows a local authority to impose buffer zones with scant transparency. The decision to introduce PSPOs is often initiated, drafted and implemented by one person or a group of council officials, with very little scrutiny and awareness of what factors they have taken into account.

I will speak briefly to other amendments. Those tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, engage with the civil liberties and rights issues. However, they accept that interference with a decision can be disallowed, which would be a first in criminal law and very hard for the individual to defend themself against. A woman could simply claim that a choice made in the privacy of her mind had in some way been influenced by a message or person.

However, the tidying-up changes that my noble friend Lady Sugg proposes do not speak to the disproportionality of Clause 9, and in some ways worsen it. For example, Amendment 84 would ensure that a buffer zone also applies where an abortion clinic is embedded within a hospital or GP surgery, as we heard. This would vastly increase the footprint affected by buffer zones. Even if only all 373 abortion clinics were included, this would leap from the current 225 square metres to 26 square kilometres, and it would single out the issue of abortion for wildly disproportionate restrictions in comparison with other health areas. A person providing false information on a leaflet about any other medical issue would be free to do so, but someone providing accurate information on abortion would be criminalised.

I could say a lot more, but this is a big group with many speakers, and I know at least one noble Lord who was dissuaded from speaking because time is not limitless. As my noble friend the Minister will know from his many conversations, there is strength of conviction on both sides of this argument. I urge him to adopt the evidence-based policy route. There is again clamour for reform of this House, but the importance of our scrutiny and revising role is not clearly understood. We would be lax in our duty if we merely rubber-stamped or gently tweaked this inadequate and ideologically inspired clause.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 98 in the name of Lord Farmer, and Amendments 88 and 90 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.

Amendment 98 would correct one of the most egregious aspects of the addition of Clause 9, which was originally added to the Bill in the other place. Amendment 98 would review why this law change is needed. This policy was reviewed just four years ago, and the then Home Secretary’s conclusion was that

“national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response”.

Those who support this clause have not demonstrated what has changed since that review.

I looked through the Home Office review from 2018, and it is interesting to note how little evidence is provided there that these buffer zones are needed. The review also sets out why the policy is unworkable, stating:

“There have been several cases where particular buffer zones have been successfully challenged on the basis they disproportionately infringe on civil liberties and freedom of speech ... buffer zone legislation has not always delivered exactly what service providers and pro-choice activists had hoped for.”


At the very least, before any law change is taken forward, we should understand what is alleged to have changed and why current laws are not sufficient. At present, the proponents of Clause 9 have not met that threshold so I support Amendment 98, which seeks to address this.

I turn to Amendments 88 and 90, which would arguably take out the most pernicious aspects of Clause 9. Amendment 88 would stop the proposed buffer zone, including criminalising a person who “seeks to influence”. This wording is sinister, impossible to enforce and an assault on our most basic freedom of speech. The same is true of Amendment 90, which would remove from the clause the provision to criminalise a person who

“advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion”.

Noble Lords and colleagues from the other place who support this clause tell us that they do so to protect women from harassment and intimidating behaviour. I again place on record my declaration that any harassment or intimidation should be subject to the law; something should be done about it. The sentiment is both worthy and correct in terms of its intent but that is a wholly different intention from seeking to stop people expressing opinions or attempting to persuade. Free societies are built on expressing opinions and attempting to persuade. Some might say that this should not take place at an abortion clinic but the Home Office review I mentioned earlier

“pointed out that the Chief Executive of BPAS”—

the abortion provider—

“had stated that 15% of patients change their minds about having an abortion at the BPAS clinics.”

I think noble Lords from across the Chamber would argue that it is plainly a decision for those women about how to proceed in those circumstances, so to deny them advice and explicitly block the expressing of opinions would rob those women of making an informed choice.

I add my support to the other amendments tabled to this clause, namely Amendments 80 to 83, 86, 89, 92 and 94. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is concern from across this House for the consequences of Clause 9 and that he will allow a pause to think about it in more detail, avoiding a rushed change to the law that will have profound consequences for both women and freedom of speech in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am in general opposed to those of the amendments which are designed to reduce the impact of Clause 9. As I said at Second Reading, I support the concept of buffer zones around abortion clinics. Of course I accept the two propositions eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: first, that the right to demonstrate and freely express views is of great importance in a democratic society; and secondly, that the provisions of Clause 9, as many of your Lordships have articulated, impose serious restrictions on such abilities. But again, as I said at Second Reading, these rights are not absolute. They have to be balanced with the rights of others, and the correct balance is often not easy to identify and can be the subject of legitimate disagreement—it usually is. However, in the context of abortion clinics, Clause 9 gets the balance about right.

I will identify occasions where the balance falls the other way: in favour of the demonstrator. Some of your Lordships will think that the examples are trivial. I have often hosted meets for our local hunts, both before the ban and after it; after the ban, our local hunt acts fully within the law. The saboteurs come and demonstrate, and they are often very tiresome. However, provided they operate within the law, I would not for one moment seek to ban them. There is another example. Pacifists sometimes demonstrate outside military recruitment offices. I disagree with that and think it is wrong in principle, but again it would never occur to me to seek to prohibit that activity.

The motives of those demonstrators and those who demonstrate outside abortion clinics have something in common. It is not that they are just expressing their own opinions, which of course they are absolutely entitled to do, but they are trying to induce a change of attitude on the part of others. It is when I come to those who protest outside abortion clinics that I am conscious of why the balance tips. Those who attend abortion clinics have come to a very painful and serious decision, and often an anguished one. I think it is very wrong to subject them to what is often intemperate bullying of an extremely nasty kind.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I mentioned at Second Reading that the BBC did a poll which found that 15% of women who went to abortion clinics had been coerced into doing so. We do not have the information as to how many partners have said, “I don’t want this child, go and have an abortion”. We need to establish that by finding the evidence. We hear all the time that the people outside the abortion clinic are against abortions. We do not see the intimate pressure that women are often under in the home—not only from male partners but perhaps from their families—to do with shame and other things. This needs to be looked into before we make a decision on this.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Parliament is in a position to make a judgment about these matters. I was in the House of Commons for nearly 30 years—not as long as my noble friend Lord Cormack—and I was well aware of, in many circumstances, from evidence which came from many quarters, the kind of abuse to which women seeking an abortion were subjected by those who demonstrated outside abortion clinics. I strongly suspect that is why the House of Commons voted for Clause 9 in such substantial numbers, because it knew it was happening and that it was wrong. We do not need a further review to establish those basic judgments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I do not think there is any doubt about that; the evidence is—

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

On the point about evidence, we are hearing people’s opinions about what the evidence is. Surely this requires a review so that we can involve the police, churches, abortion users—everybody—to get real evidence that is satisfactory to this House. At the moment, it is the kind of evidence where we are saying, “We know about and maybe you don’t.” I have not seen any 100% documentary evidence that these things are going on. I am going on the word of the noble Baroness and others.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, raised a question about the intimidation of women in clinics. He knows that clinics are regulated by the Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC and that it is expressly against the terms of their licence to do that; if they were found to be doing that, they would not be able to carry on.

I want to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, about penalties. The penalties provided in Clause 9 are equivalent to those for other cases of harassment in other statutes. Amendment 94 would introduce a penalty at the same level as for skateboarding in the wrong place. I happen to think that the abuse of women is a lot more serious than a skateboarding offence.

Public Order Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I agree with much of what she said and will be speaking similarly in many respects.

I am largely supportive of the Bill inasmuch as it plugs gaps in legislation to stop serious and dangerous disruption. The country is trying to get back on its feet after a once-in-a-century pandemic, and protesters are constantly refining their tactics to cause as much disturbance as possible.

My main concern with the Bill is the ideologically inspired Clause 9, which has just been spoken about, introduced as an opposition party amendment in the other place. Of those who voted, all Labour MPs registered their support for the right to protest disruptively by voting against the Bill at Second Reading, and all voted for pro-life protesters’ rights to be withdrawn. This is not just hypocritical; it exposes the cultural authoritarianism behind those who claim to want freedom to protest.

Clause 9 is now the most restrictive part of the whole Bill, allegedly to protect women from harassment. Yet it goes significantly beyond banning “harassment” or even preventing “serious disruption”, as is the stated intention of the Bill. It bans “protest” for those who hold certain beliefs, and their right to “inform”, “persuade”, “advise” or even express opinion on the public street.

Martin Luther King once said:

“Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.”


However, for some, the right to protest depends entirely on what one’s convictions are. Pro-life convictions are deemed so abhorrent as to require a blanket ban and withdrawal of rights within certain spaces.

Furthermore, the Bill reduces the threshold of criminality to standards lower than ever before and, as currently drafted, would likely catch a parent, teacher or social worker giving, at the request of a young or vulnerable person, rounded advice to help them make one of life’s most difficult decisions.

Instructively, five local councils have instituted buffer zones already. Bournemouth Council has prohibited even the act of crossing oneself in the vicinity, treating even peaceful presence as intimidation. All five councils have banned prayer—even silent prayer, in the case of Ealing—flagrantly violating religious freedom. If prayer is considered a form of “influence”, then Clause 9 puts the UK’s first “thought crime” into statute.

Such sweeping criminalisation is out of all proportion to action which may, of course, be required to deal with inappropriate behaviour near abortion facilities. Where harassment and intimidation occur, the police already have several different legislative mechanisms to choose from, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. This empowers police officers to disperse or otherwise prevent those pro-life vigils which risk causing alarm or distress to persons in the vicinity.

A thorough Home Office review in 2018 found that police intervention into pro-life activity is very infrequently necessary and instances of harassment outside abortion facilities are rare. Volunteers are engaged mainly in silent prayer or handing out leaflets offering charitable support to women who would like to be able to continue their pregnancy but feel powerless to do so without financial or practical help. A 2022 BBC poll found that 15% of women were coerced into having an abortion by partners or family members. One of my close relatives became pregnant while still living in her parents’ home and was forced to go down that route.

As a society, we are rightly concerned about coercion in relationships and value the role of the voluntary sector in helping to identify cases. Yet, at present, there is active disdain for pro-life charities’ role in helping women step away from the people and pressures that are pushing them down the abortion route. One might say that there is cultural coercion: an underlying assumption that abortion is the only plausible route for a pregnant woman in certain circumstances to go down. Where there is potential or actual disability, the medical profession can actively seek to influence a woman in that direction. Is a genuinely pro-choice approach to abortion really served by Clause 9?

My honourable friend in the other place, Sir Bernard Jenkin, supported it on the grounds that women have already agonised about their decision and considered every alternative by the time they arrive at the clinic. I respectfully disagree with this: in a pro-abortion culture soaked in rights rhetoric, many will have discounted the very possibility of going through with the pregnancy. There are plenty of examples from organisations such as Be Here For Me of women who accepted an uncoercive offer of help to continue their pregnancy and have subsequently spoken out in favour of keeping this option open to other women.

The Home Secretary concluded in 2018 that buffer zones would be a disproportionate response. So what has changed? Perhaps it is simply the United States Supreme Court decision to make abortion law the preserve of individual states.

If passed into law, Clause 9 would mark the single most significant shift away from English law’s presumption of individual liberty and freedom of expression in the interest of ruthlessly censoring pro-life views. Yes, these fly in the face of our current cultural norms and may be held only by a minority, but that is exactly what our fundamental freedoms of expression are designed to protect.

Where will this end? Banning people from public areas near abortion facilities based purely on their beliefs could lead to any organisation dealing with contentious matters staking a claim for a buffer zone around its premises. A gender dysphoria clinic could seek a buffer zone excluding those voicing concerns about puberty blockers, or a foreign embassy could request a buffer zone near its premises to prevent people speaking out against the regime. What would become criminal is whatever dissent a group wants to prosecute.

The great protests of history show that choosing the time, place and manner of assembly matters deeply. Crowds gathered at Clapham Common for the Sarah Everard vigil last year, as we have heard, to make the point that this must never happen again. In July, a brave Catholic priest launched a three-day protest outside a Hong Kong maximum security prison to demand the release of activists and politicians. Could the message of either of these protests really have been effectively communicated elsewhere?

Blanket bans on fundamental rights rarely meet the requirements of proportionality in rights legislation; hence, as we have heard, the Minister not being able to sign off the Bill as rights-compliant. Clause 9 disproportionately interferes not only with protest but with freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Presented as a small and necessary step to protect women outside abortion centres, it is in fact a giant and unnecessary leap away from our hard-fought civil liberties.

Finally, I understand that this was subject to a conscience vote in the other place. Why? I would challenge the designation as an issue of conscience. This is not about whether or not abortions should take place. This culturally authoritarian clause criminalises someone praying silently with their eyes closed. It is both deeply absurd and deeply dangerous. It should not stand part of the Bill.

Male Victims of Crime: Support

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In all honesty, I have to say that I do not. In the year ending March 2020, the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales found that 13.8% of men and 27.6% of women aged 16 to 74 had experienced domestic abuse. That is equivalent to an estimated 2.9 million men and 5.9 million women. So the VAWG strategy reflects the disproportionate impact on women, but that is absolutely not to say that we take no notice of the impact on male victims. In fact, we recognise some of the difficulties that men can find in, first, coming forward to report the abuse and, secondly, taking it through the criminal justice system.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, following on from that question, one-third of domestic abuse victims are men and, per the new Domestic Abuse Act, boys who witness domestic abuse are also victims, yet many male victims of violence are categorised as victims of “violence against women and girls”, while others have no specific policy. Does the Minister agree that this categorisation is semantic nonsense, and that ignoring men’s specific needs makes a mockery of equality? Moreover, will the Government publish a parallel violence against men and boys strategy to cover all forms of intimate violence against men and boys?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend’s figures are absolutely right. Had we done it in the way that he suggests, there may have been a lot of complaints from women and domestic abuse organisations that we had not reflected the fact that it is predominantly women who suffer from domestic abuse. However, we published the Supporting Male Victims document in March to help to raise awareness of this issue and highlight the specialist support that may be required to assist them. They are included in both the tackling VAWG strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan. As I said yesterday, anyone who comes forward as a victim of domestic violence will be treated first and foremost as a victim, whether they are male or female.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech prioritises growing and strengthening the economy and helping to ease the cost of living for families. This will require strengthening families. The Centre for Social Justice established that family breakdown—divorce and separation, father absence and dysfunctional family relationships—is not just a consequence of financial hardship but drives poverty and financial stress. As well as leading to much emotional and physical harm and significant health costs, it undermines individuals’ productivity and creativity, which has a knock-on effect on the economy.

During the pandemic, parents who had never needed help with the practicalities of family life, as well as in their relationships with their children and each other, began to reach out to local services and charities because they were at breaking point. Their significant financial and other anxieties have not receded but increased. That is why, in the Government’s efforts to level up and support more people into work, their policy on family hubs is particularly important and needs cross-departmental collaboration. Family hubs help to ensure that children have the best start for life and help parents to get out of debt, address substance misuse and get into employment. They could support the separated families in which one-third of all children grow up, and of which almost two-fifths are involved in acrimonious court proceedings.

The levelling-up Bill will place a duty on the Government to set missions and produce an annual report on their delivery. Action for Children’s suggested measures for levelling up for children include investment in education and for a number of children who are school-ready. I would make requirements on the number growing up with both their parents, a regional version of the family stability indicator that was part of the Government’s social justice strategy. Nationally, around a quarter of families are headed by lone parents, where children are particularly at risk of poverty and disadvantage. In 2013, the CSJ took the most local view possible and published an analysis of lower super output areas across England and Wales. Ranking all LSOAs by levels of lone parenthood, the top area had 75%, and in the top 10 the proportion was around 66%. Others, such as the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, acknowledge such differences in family structure among factors driving inequality of children’s outcomes.

Reducing regulation on businesses must include farming. Freedom from European regulation may have come in the nick of time, because our farms must perform to the max, given the ugly spectre of world famine that stalks the war in Ukraine. Agricultural innovation is urgently needed to build a more sustainable future but, in the developing global food crisis, particularly for grain, the Government must prioritise food production instead of imposing any new restrictions—for example, on fertilisers and pesticides.

Turning to justice and home affairs, I very much applaud the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who talked about prevention upstream and downstream. Numbers of victims will continue to increase and streets will not be safer unless crime is prevented, including by improving rehabilitation. Considerable attention is paid to the plight of women in the criminal justice system. My review pointed to the abuse and violence many have suffered as potent criminogenic factors. A similar narrative would fit the reality of many men and boys in trouble with the law, but no one is articulating it. There are roughly 77,000 men and 3,800 women in prison—a stark difference. Yet, given our swollen male prisons, this is an area where significant changes are needed.

On criminalisation, the Government should tread very carefully—I am backing my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay here—when introducing an offence spanning non-physical conversion therapies intended to change sexual orientation. The Government will need to be crystal clear what they mean by “conversion” and “therapy”, so that when under-18s explore their sexuality with their parents, or perhaps a youth leader in a faith organisation, such people who are sincerely motivated by young people’s welfare are not unintentionally criminalised. A wide spectrum of responses exists between unquestioningly affirming their sexual orientation and rejecting it out of hand. Treating young people’s transgender issues separately is right, but many of the same concerns are relevant to sexual orientation and should not be batted away as homophobic.

Finally, much has been said about the Online Safety Bill and that it might curtail freedom of speech. However, there is much disquiet about children’s and young people’s access to pornography. Moreover, responses to “tractorgate” in the other place reveal how adults, as well as children, suffer when abusive, violent, misogynistic and racist porn is prolific because it is so addictive. As with gambling, libertarian arguments sound very hollow when the utter human misery associated with porn addiction becomes apparent, from the inability to form relationships and/or perform sexual functions because of its effects, to the social isolation and financial burden. This is not about making moral judgments, but recognising insidious and very real harm.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to those who had lived for 20 or 30 years in their acquired gender. I am afraid this amendment would deal with that sort of situation. I know that it is well meant and it acknowledges the difficulties, but I suggest that to legislate in this area would be extremely inappropriate.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, one of the main reasons I put my name again to this revised amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra is that I was not persuaded by the Minister’s assurances in Committee that risks are properly balanced before a trans woman is housed in the female prison estate.

First, I heard no mention of the consideration not just of physical harm coming to female prisoners but of the risks of introducing high levels of fear and anxiety by accepting male-bodied female-identifying persons into the prison. More than half of female prisoners have experienced domestic violence—we have already heard that this evening in the previous debate—the vast majority of which will surely have been at the hands of men. A case board investigating the risk that a trans woman presents will not be looking through the filter of trauma, abuse and male exploitation that many imprisoned women apply to their surroundings. I undertook several prison visits for my MoJ-commissioned review of the female estate. As was typical, I questioned a panel of prisoners. On one visit, the de facto leader, who dominated the proceedings, was obviously male and not attempting to pass as a woman. This transgender prisoner might not have been exerting sexually charged and motivated power, but there was a palpable imbalance all the same.

Secondly, Ministry of Justice policy is not in step, as we have heard this evening, with public opinion. A poll conducted by Women for Women UK found that, when respondents were asked whether intact male-bodied trans women should be housed in a women’s prison, support slumped to net disapproval of minus 20%. Contrary to public perception, the overwhelming majority of male-born transgender people retain their penis and are fully male bodied. Moreover, a 2016 meta-analysis established that less than 3% of the transgender population is undergoing any gender-affirming surgical or hormonal treatment, with the remaining 97% simply self-identifying with no modifications to their natal sex body at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an argument about the trans woman prisoner whom these policies are designed to protect, who may have been living in their acquired gender for many years, have had full reassignment surgery and treatment, pass perfectly as a woman and have been convicted of a minor non-violent offence, and said that to refuse to house this prisoner in the female estate would be wholly unjustified. But the statistics I have just given, and my own understanding and albeit limited experience of transgender prisoners housed in women’s prisons, lead me to ask: is this description really characteristic of the population of trans women prisoners, including those held in the female estate? This example of a transgender prisoner seems divorced from reality and from the prisoners with whom female offenders are forced to contend on a daily basis. It is perplexing why prison policy is formulated to account for a situation that may never transpire, exposing female offenders to prisoners who are very far removed from that hypothetical.

Rhona Hotchkiss, a prison governor from Scotland who, as deputy in a men’s prison, initially pushed for trans women to be housed in the female estate, became deeply concerned at how this practice played out when she became governor of Cornton Vale. A prisoner transferred from the male estate when they identified as a woman then reidentified as a man after a short time in Cornton Vale. Frustrated by the delay while the Scottish Prison Service deliberated, the prisoner threatened to rape other prisoners and staff. Hotchkiss was deeply shaken, thinking: “What woman threatens to rape other people”—a crime for which a penis is required—and “Why should we take people’s word for this? We don’t for anything else”. This to me strikes at the heart of the issue: we are giving the benefit of the doubt to people who identify as women yet have all their male hormones and physicality intact. We are giving them access to female spaces despite the benefits to and rights of women to have sex-specific prisons.

This amendment has broader implications. It speaks to the necessity of upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of women and girls on the basis of sex, not gender, as recognised in UK and international law. This is not simply a disagreement between the Government and those of us who have spoken to the amendment. It is a difference in point of principle between the Government and large swathes of the electorate, as polling indicates. Gender does not take precedence over sex. Males do not take precedence over females. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not take precedence over the protected characteristic of sex.

To summarise: in the prison context, male hormones and a male sex organ surely present considerable risk to vulnerable women, for the varied reasons I have given above, which include perceived threat to mental safety and actual threat of domination and exploitation, not just the objective risk of physical and sexual harm. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and want to make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of this particular amendment. But, because the debate has ranged far and wide beyond the amendment, and because there appears to be some misunderstanding in the House as to what the amendment is, I hope that, when the noble Lord stands to speak to this amendment, he will clarify two important factors.

I wonder whether he would tell the House whether housing a trans woman holding a gender recognition certificate on the male estate would be unlawful, as that woman is legally a woman. That is quite an important distinction, and it has not come out. There is clearly a misunderstanding there. The second point I would like him to clarify is whether housing a trans woman on a male estate, or a trans man on a women’s estate, could be unlawful as it could amount to discrimination.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, one is always left stunned and moved when listening to my noble friend Lady Newlove. I rise to support Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin and others. I congratulate her on her clear and persuasive introduction.

As I said last week when moving Amendment 176 in my own name, to truly tackle domestic abuse we must be bold. We need to take a holistic, whole-family approach, with targeted interventions to support adult victims to rebuild their lives, to support children experiencing domestic abuse and to ensure that perpetrators have access to quality programmes to prevent offending and reoffending. It is the quality programmes for perpetrators that Amendment 167 is addressing.

We know from MARAC data that there are at least 53,000 high-harm perpetrators in England and Wales at any given time. We know too that the Drive project which noble Lords have spoken about, set up by Respect, SafeLives and Social Finance, is probably the best-funded perpetrator intervention programme. It has suggested that it is working with just over 2,000 of the highest-harm perpetrators who pose a risk of murder or serious physical harm. It is important, it is praiseworthy and it is life-saving work, but 2,000 out of 53,000 is not even scratching the surface. As my noble friend Lady Newlove explained, so many are in danger now.

This timely and vitally important Bill is very welcome and has so much support, but this amendment is crucial. It is crucial that efforts are made to improve and enhance current perpetrator programmes, but it is also crucial to dramatically increase the number of programmes. I look to my noble friend the Minister to find a way to welcome this amendment, as it will enhance this vital legislation. As my noble friend Lady Bertin rightly said, it has support not only across this House but from countless organisations on the front line, from children’s organisations to the police, LEAs and—perhaps most tellingly—survivors themselves.

[Lord Farmer (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am also pleased to speak in support of Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin. I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Polak in his encouragements for this amendment to be made law, particularly because of the emphasis on prevention as well as perpetrators in the strategy. It is essential to focus adequately on perpetrators, but this is late intervention. It needs to be properly matched with a root-and-branch approach to early intervention, preventing, where possible, the precursors to violence and abuse from developing into full-blown perpetration.

There is very little mention of prevention in the Bill as it currently stands, yet adopting a prevention paradigm is indispensable for reducing the staggeringly high levels of domestic abuse reported in this country over the long term. This requires acknowledging that in this area of policy, as in so many others, people cannot be treated as individuals, because their identity, health and well-being fundamentally depend on their relationships. As well as being a crime, domestic abuse is a problem with a relationship or set of relationships, and if we are ever to get ahead of its dreadful curve, a cross-government approach to strengthening families before, during and after abuse occurs is utterly foundational.

I could substantiate this in very many ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, when she led the Government’s troubled families programme, highlighted the ubiquity of domestic violence in the families being helped. Evidence suggests that the most powerful contributors to domestic abuse in our society are rooted in the relationships people have and are witnesses to when they are young. This needs to be addressed in a prevention paradigm. Childhood exposure to domestic violence and child physical abuse are two of the most powerful predictors of both perpetrating and receiving domestic abuse as an adult. Domestic violence between parents increases the likelihood of violence in their children’s later relationships by 189%. The public understand this. Polling carried out by the Centre for Social Justice, albeit in 2011, found that most of the population—73% of adults—think that if we want to tackle domestic abuse, we have to recognise that many perpetrators have themselves been victims of abuse.

Childhood neglect can mean that individuals enter adult life unable to regulate their emotions and communicate with others. They often have intrusive memories of violence, think badly about themselves or others and are at risk of struggling profoundly when they become partners and parents. Obviously, there are other cultural influences, such as misogyny and enduring beliefs that it is okay, under certain circumstances, to resolve arguments with violence. These can be tackled also with social marketing. In Hull, they put up posters with slogans such as “Real Men Don’t Hit Women”.

Low income is consistently associated with, and indeed worsened by, domestic abuse. Victims’ ability to work is hampered by psychological and physical effects, and restricting their access to work is a form of abuse of economic control. Money worries make conflict about finances more likely to trigger aggression. It can also threaten men’s identity where lack of money is associated with lack of male power. Men denied power through social status can seek it in violence, social control and subjugation of women.

Alcohol and drugs are also massive drivers. In almost two-fifths of domestic violence incidents, the perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol; in one-fifth of cases, under the influence of drugs; and sometimes, both. Substances hamper social and problem-solving skills and the ability to control emotions and they lower inhibitions, but the link between alcohol and violence is socially learned. This and the other factors cited above, including adversity in childhood, are never excuses; they simply help to explain. Many men and women with the most desperate back stories never resort to abuse. They may even determine to alchemise adversity into kindness towards themselves and others.

Finally, if we are to prevent revictimisation, we have to recognise that victims are often unable to break free of the psychological drivers embedded in their past experiences. These can contribute to them becoming enmeshed in an abusive relationship in the first place, and help explain why they feel so ambivalent towards the perpetrator and end up in other abusive relationships. Between 40% and 56% of women experiencing domestic abuse have had a previously abusive relationship. In one study, 66% of refuge residents had previously left and returned to their abusive partner; 97% of these women had done so on multiple occasions. These are sobering statistics because the impact of abusive relationships is cumulative; so much of the harm associated with domestic abuse is due to multiple victimisation.

I hope that I have given the Government a steer as to what a prevention strategy would look like. It would acknowledge the effects of low income, substance misuse and culture, but primarily focus on early intervention in families and be explicit about the relational character of domestic abuse. It would highlight the role of family hubs as places people can go to get help in this area, including when early signs of violence are seen in children and young people. In summary, families and family relationships can no longer be neglected in solutions to this most heinous of social problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is having connection problems and so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.

[Lord Farmer (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 183 in my name. As I said in my explanatory statement, my amendment,

“would require the Government to provide information on the evidence-based differences between the motivational drivers of different types of abuse.”

Clause 73(2)(a) covers the range of behaviours that amount to abuse. We have, thankfully, moved a long way from thinking purely in terms of physical violence and there is welcome recognition that non-violent abusive strategies inflict profound psychological harms. These include but are by no means limited to: imposing isolation; stalking; subjecting partners to public and private humiliations; taking over all control of finances, social life and family matters; and often forcing compliance with those and other abuses by threatening, if not actually perpetrating, violence. I would expect those issues and many others to be covered in the guidance under subsection (2)(a).

However, what also needs to be included—hence my proposed new paragraph (c)—are distinctions between the different types of violence, which are essential for planning nuanced and effective interventions. Indeed, many social scientists consider that it is no longer scientifically or ethically acceptable to refer to domestic violence without making the type of partner violence clear.

Four types of relationship violence have been extensively recognised in research: coercive controlling violence—also known, more evocatively, as intimate terrorism; violent resistance; situational couple violence; and separation-instigated violence. While every form of abuse is completely unacceptable and the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator, it is essential to hold a relationship-based understanding of domestic-abuse intention along with the fact that abuse is a criminal act. We need to recognise the drivers of abuse as well as ensuring that the police and courts have all the powers they need to hold perpetrators to account.

A relationship-based understanding challenges the notion that abuse always stems from a power dynamic within couples, which typically means the male partner is seeking to control the female. In other jurisdictions such as the United States, policymakers have taken on board research from, for instance, Professor Michael Johnson, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan and Professor Nicky Stanley, which has exposed the diversity of underlying motives. They emphasise that while male domination and coercive control are important elements of intimate terrorism, which occurs in 2% to 4% of heterosexual couples, and in what Stanley refers to as a sizeable minority of same-sex relationships, situational violence is the far more prevalent form, occurring in 12% to 14% of heterosexual couples and termed “common” by Stanley in same-sex relationships.

In situational couple violence, the violence is situationally provoked as the tensions or emotions of the circumstances that a couple find themselves in lead one or both of the partners to resort to violence. Conflict leads to arguments, which escalate to verbal aggression and ultimately to physical violence. It can also be perpetrated, say, after a bad football result and a lengthy drinking session. Johnson argues that the perpetration of situational couple violence is roughly gender-symmetric, and as likely to occur in same-sex as in heterosexual relationships. Typically, rather than a power imbalance, it occurs when one or both partners are struggling to control their emotions. However, even when violence is mutual, women often fare worse because they are physically weaker. It is terrifying to be a child in the middle of a physical fight between their parents. Through its threats to the child’s caregivers, all violence and abuse between parents profoundly threatens a child’s sense of safety.

A typology of violence does not downplay any one form of violence—it all has to stop—but understanding what is driving it will help that to happen. However, treating all violence as the same freezes out the possibility that some partners, where there has been situational violence, can safely stay together with specialist relationship and other support. The viability of providing specialist relationship support for couples where there is situational violence has been thoroughly researched by trusted providers such as Tavistock Relationships. Again, without victim-blaming or perpetrator-absolving, it points out:

“It is extremely rare for services to identify and respond to the dynamic processes within the couple relationship and other important contributory factors that influence the prevalence of inter-personal violence.”


There is UK evidence that the relationship-focused parenting intervention Parents as Partners reduces violent problem-solving. This and other approaches, such as Sandra Stith’s joint couples therapy in the US, give couples the opportunity to work together on their difficulties and help them to establish better ways of dealing with stressors in their relationships. This is never about forcing victims to stay with violent partners; blame lies solely with the perpetrator.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have often spoken in this House about the need for a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to domestic violence that is evidence-led, responds as effectively as possible to this issue and, particularly, emphasises prevention.

In this vein, I welcome the non-gendered definition in the Bill. For every three victims of partner or domestic abuse, two will be female and one male, and male victims are nearly three times as likely as women not to tell anyone about partner abuse that they are enduring. Fewer men than women tell the police, a person in an official position or a health professional. However, I am concerned that the definition is so wide that almost any interpersonal behaviour could fall into the category of abuse. Moreover, Clause 1 includes phrases such as

“Behaviour is ‘abusive’ if it consists of … physical or sexual abuse”,


which is not exactly definitional.

As time is very short, I will now focus on what is absent from the Bill. Any abuse is completely unacceptable, and responsibility always lies with the perpetrator, but policy discussions in the United Kingdom seem to treat all abuse as stemming from a power dynamic within couples where one partner, typically a man, seeks to control the other. Other jurisdictions, such as the United States, accept international research emphasising that, while male domination and coercive control are important elements of intimate couple terrorism, this occurs in only 2% to 4% of heterosexual couples.

Situational violence has a different underlying motivation and typically arises in tense circumstances which generate arguments and escalate to verbal aggression and, ultimately, physical violence by one or both partners. Far more prevalent, occurring in 12% to 14% of heterosexual couples, such badly managed conflict requires a different preventive approach and solutions.

The Bill lacks a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy which works with whole families to help ensure that the needs of victims, children and perpetrators are met and abuse is not repeated in the next generation. Family hubs have a central role to play here, and I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. To ensure perpetrators engage properly with effective programmes, this should include social marketing. Hull City Council successfully highlighted the perfidy of domestic abuse without alienating men or perpetrators by disseminating key messages, such as “Real men don’t hit women”, through the innovative use of technology and social media. This profoundly challenges abusive behaviour rooted in subcultural relational norms, particularly male dominance.

Despite its welcome recognition that children living in contexts of domestic abuse are also victims, I agree with others that the Bill should specify that this includes babies and unborn babies, who suffer significant trauma while still in the womb, to ensure that their needs can be properly met. I also agree that the threat to disclose private sexual photographs or films, a particularly pernicious form of control within intimate relationships, should be criminalised through this Bill.

Finally, the clear responsibilities regarding refuges in the Bill contrast starkly with the lack of focus on the bulk need, which is—as many noble Lords have mentioned—for community-based services, including those which prevent abuse. These would save manifold families from long-lasting injury and mental pain, and myriad costs to the public purse.

Domestic Abuse: Rural Communities

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

One of the difficulties in rural communities is often that victims will not come forward, even to their general practitioner, for fear that knowledge of their situation will become more widespread. They are concerned by that. That is why we are advancing the national statement of expectations as a blueprint for rural and urban areas in order to bring together a partnership of health experts, social workers, the police and the Church.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, rural populations also experience a higher suicide rate than urban areas despite comparable depression prevalence. What are the Government doing to prevent these suicides in rural areas?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Clearly, every life lost to suicide is a tragedy. We know that individuals living in rural areas may experience feelings of isolation and that individuals working in some industries, such as agriculture, are at a higher risk of suicide. The national suicide prevention strategy aims to reduce the risk of suicide in high-risk groups. Indeed, in 2014, we launched the crisis care concordat so that there is a crisis care action plan in every local area to support those who may be susceptible to suicide.

Immigration Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, the hour is very late. I shall be very brief. I find myself on this occasion in broad agreement with the interventions in this debate. The abuses in Iraq and Syria are repulsive and surely can only amount to genocide. I therefore welcome effective action in respect of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria.

I will just make two practical observations. The first refers to proposed new subsection (1), which is very widely drawn. We could at some future date find that literally millions of people qualified for the presumption that they met the qualifications for asylum in the UK. In the past five years alone, the office of the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide has named five countries as being at risk: Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Libya and Ivory Coast. Any of these situations could descend into genocide in the coming years, so it follows that a blanket clause in our immigration law could prove to be a serious hostage to fortune. I am not sure how that can be dealt with. A limit of numbers is a possibility. That was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and might be a way forward on that point. But above all, it is surely essential to avoid a situation where a thoroughly well-intentioned statement sets off a wave of humanity that has reached the limits of its endurance. I leave it to the proposers to consider that point.

My other observation refers to proposed new subsection (3), which envisages British missions overseas assessing applications. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that that is a difficult road to go down; I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, had similar doubts. It is not hard to imagine a ghastly event in Sudan or somewhere leading to hundreds of claimants camping outside some of our missions. It might be possible to engage the UNHCR in the process. If it does not have that capacity, we might be able to consider, for example, sending a team of British officials deployed for this purpose in situ. They might be established somewhere appropriate, perhaps in a refugee camp near the border with the country concerned, but certainly not in a mission, which would very soon be swamped.

The practicalities clearly need some further thought and we should not overlook the point that to move away from the fundamental principle of claiming asylum in the UK is a major departure. That said, I think we must find a way to tackle this ghastly situation—to break, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, put it, the cycle of inertia.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, will be brief. There can be no doubt that the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Kennedy, have brought an issue of the most profound gravity to our attention, and they have done so with characteristic eloquence and passion. It is essential that Parliament takes the time to consider the appalling treatment meted out to Yazidis and Christians, the threat of extinction that faces these ancient communities, and what our considered response should be to this genocide claim. What is being proposed today is that we amend primary legislation in far-reaching ways with minimal consideration and debate. Surely a better way forward would be to establish a specific review that does justice to the enormity of the issue that is before us today, which would then be the subject of a sufficiently lengthy debate in both Houses.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill, not least because it is a good example of why we should take the needs of families into account when setting the legislative agenda. It is my firm belief that we should consciously seek to strengthen families throughout the legislative agenda. This means backing parents as they seek to raise their children with clear boundaries, and protecting young people from those who would seek to profit from their misery. As has been noted throughout this debate, we really are concerned with young people—they are who we keep on mentioning; it is not the older generation but young people we are concerned with.

Our debate is all the more poignant because, according to yesterday’s papers, one young woman remains in hospital after five young people were admitted over the weekend suffering from the effects of taking one such legal high, which was sold openly to them at a festival. It is this human tragedy and the effects on families that should move us to act. It is clear that a rising number of families are being ripped apart by these drugs. Although the shadowy nature of the drugs makes estimation difficult, the signs are there. We have heard a lot of statistics today, but the number of police incidents involving these drugs, including domestic abuse, has gone up by more than 150% in the past year. More people—mostly young, as I have said—are being admitted to hospital. More are entering addiction treatment dependent not on illegal drugs but on this new generation of substances. Tragically, as we have heard, the number of deaths linked to these drugs is rising.

Part of the blame must lie with the sellers, but it also lies with the inadequacy of the law as it stands. Repeatedly, people have said, “They are available in the shops, I thought they were safe”. What help are we providing to parents if we continue to allow this confused state of affairs? On the one hand, we say through the law that certain substances such as cocaine or heroin are bad and should not be available; on the other, we say that substances that produce the same or worse effects are freely available to buy in high street shops—the so-called head shops. The targeting of children is particularly egregious and reveals the intentions of the sellers. Despite being labelled as not for human consumption, these substances are often packaged like sweets and sold at pocket money prices. As numerous undercover reports have found, the sellers know exactly what they are doing and provide advice on how people should take the drugs. It is this availability that is part of the danger to the young. How can parents hope to educate and protect their children when the Government send out such a confusing message?

I want to address those libertarian arguments that people have the right to do whatever they want and government has no right to intervene. With regard to this debate, I am afraid that such an approach does not take into account the realities of life or how people lead their lives. It also abrogates our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society. First, the effects on others in society of those who have consumed these drugs can be profound, which impacts the freedom of others. Beyond the burden on public services—and thereby the taxpayer—we should note the increasing reports of assaults, violence in prison and domestic abuse, all related to the consumption of these drugs.

More importantly, we have a duty, as I say, to protect young people, who are not deemed to be responsible adults. The evidence from Ireland, which we have heard much about this afternoon, is that banning the high street sale of these drugs works to protect young people. I have evidence here which is possibly in contrast to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The Centre for Social Justice spoke to doctors in hospitals across Ireland last summer, and the message that came back was clear. In 2010, when the ban came in, the number of admissions of young people suffering the effects of these drugs was greatly reduced. One doctor said that the difference was like night and day. This was because the number of head shops went from more than 100 to fewer than 10.

With the internet as an alternative source for these drugs, your Lordships might find it counterintuitive that young people were accessing these substances in high street shops at all. There have been several suggestions as to why this was the case. First, young people think that because the substances are available to buy in a high street shop, they are somehow regulated and therefore safe.

[Baroness Meacher]

One possible explanation for the drop in people going to hospitals when a ban is introduced is that they are nervous of turning up there having taken an illegal substance. It is possible that the increase in deaths may have something to do with people not going to get the help that perhaps they needed—but we need some more research into these matters.

[Lord Farmer]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention and I take note. Secondly, young people do not necessarily have access to credit cards with which to make online purchases. Thirdly, they might not like the idea of having these drugs delivered to their parents’ home. Whatever the case, the results were stark and the doctors were supportive of the ban. It is of course not the entire solution. Enforcing this law so as to tackle the supply online will be key. What plans does the Minister have to discuss the implementation of the ban with the National Crime Agency?

We also need to ensure that addiction treatment services are available to those who need help. Local authority budgets are, as we all know, strained and everyone is having to make adjustments. However, helping people off drugs and into work is surely an investment worth making. Crucially, we must make sure that prevention, early intervention and education are priorities. We know from prevention science that any message that children receive at school must also be backed up by what they hear at home. This ban will send a clear signal to children and parents that these substances are dangerous and should be avoided. Rather than undermining parents’ authority, the law will put us back on their side. There is no silver bullet—I think that we all agree on that—but as part of a broader response, this action is necessary and proportionate. It is our duty to protect the vulnerable and the young—and so I, too, welcome the Bill and wish it well on its passage through the House.