Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “day,” insert “the hereditament is a publicly-owned library or community centre or a local authority property that is free of charge to enter and contains a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use, or”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

--- Later in debate ---

It is right that the measure should remain a targeted relief, focused on providing support for public facilities in specific circumstances. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.

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

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

--- Later in debate ---

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “lavatories” insert “which are free of charge for anyone to use”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.

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

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

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

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

--- Later in debate ---

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “zero”, insert “; and where, on a chargeable day, the hereditament consists partly of public lavatories, the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the public lavatories shall be separately calculated and the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the hereditament shall be reduced by the amount calculated in respect of those public lavatories.”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.

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

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

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

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

--- Later in debate ---

11: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—

“Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories

The Secretary of State must within one year of the passing of this Act conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”Member’s explanatory statement

This new Clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.

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

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

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

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Refugees: Napier Barracks

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I am very sorry, Lord Roberts, but I am afraid we cannot hear you. I am going to pass on, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

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

My Lords, I have never been to Napier barracks but, in the past, I have seen accommodation we have provided to our servicepeople in other parts of the United Kingdom. In many cases, it is not of a very high standard, which is very disappointing. Can the noble Baroness justify to the House how we can be sure that this is good-quality accommodation? Do we not have here a public health disaster made in the Home Office?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can say to the noble Lord that, first, we are working very closely with public health authorities. Secondly, on the various aspects by which you might judge how people are living, there is drinking water, including bottled water, and three meals a day, two of them hot. I have gone through the healthcare provisions, and legal advice is also available. There is wi-fi on site, and everyone has a phone.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

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

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations.

The amendment seeks to enhance the welcome improvements in relation to tenancies embodied in Clauses 71 and 72. They show that the Government have recognised that survivors of domestic abuse in this area are currently let down by the law. The tenancy laws can mean that where there is a joint tenancy a survivor of domestic abuse has only two options: to stay and endure further abuse or to leave the home and potentially become homeless. There is currently no way in which the survivor can exercise a right to stay in the home, with all the security and instability that that means, and require the abuser to leave. Indeed, an abuser could unilaterally terminate the joint tenancy, thereby effectively evicting the survivor into potential homelessness.

Where the landlord is the local authority or a registered provider of social housing, there is no requirement for alternative accommodation to be under the same security of tenure that the survivor and her children previously enjoyed. As Women’s Aid has said, the risk of losing a lifetime tenancy is a significant concern for survivors who fear the consequences of losing security of tenure if they leave. Yet, that is a frequent outcome for survivors and children who escape to a refuge.

As I have said, Clauses 71 and 72 are welcome. However, they assume that it is the survivor of abuse who must quit the family home and not the abuser. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, would ensure a legal solution for survivors with joint tenancies to retain their housing security and stay safely in their own homes long term. It is important that there be a range of housing options available to people experiencing domestic abuse and that if they wish to stay in their home they should be able to do so safely and affordably. They should not have to become homeless or struggle to afford their tenancy because of abuse.

I know that housing associations are keen to work to support people who are experiencing domestic abuse and I know that they have also worked supportively with survivors if there are any arrears on the tenancy and/or damage to the property caused by the perpetrator. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has said, it would be useful if there were more workable rules for joint tenancy in general, but the amendment is certainly a good first step.

The Government have recognised the importance of guaranteeing safe accommodation for survivors who flee their home and their abuser. I hope that they will agree that the best outcome for any family is to have the safety and security of staying in their own familiar home, free from the abuser and free to get on with their lives.

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

My Lords, I should declare a number of interests because this is a housing matter. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a director of MHS Homes Ltd.

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, is one that I fully support. I am delighted to sign it with other Members from across the House. During our discussions on this Domestic Abuse Bill, we have heard how perpetrators can take control of all aspects of victims’ lives. The victims need help and support to get away from their abuser. The ability to live in your home without fear of the person you are living with is an important first step to getting control of your life. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she says that a victim being driven out of their home—to a refuge or other temporary accommodation or to stay with friends—is something that should make us all very angry. It is just part of the devastating consequences that abusers have on victims’ lives and their children’s lives. We all want to ensure that we stop this.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, again made an excellent contribution. I would be happy to support an amendment with his suggestion at the next stage. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, could respond to that. It may be that we need something more expanded. If someone is not a tenant at all but is living in the house, perhaps they should have the right to take over the tenancy as well. I think it is an important point.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, listed the disadvantages that a victim can suffer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, we need to take away the power of the abuser in this situation. We can all see the situation in which an angry abuser wants to get even or cause trouble for the victim, for example by ending the tenancy or doing something else equally unpleasant and nasty. We need to ensure that we are doing what we can to stop those things. As my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe said, you can see the real concern of a victim, “I’m in this terrible situation. Even worse, I’ll be on the street”. It just makes it even more difficult for people.

This is a very important issue and a very good amendment. As we have heard, the amendment provides for a new mechanism whereby a survivor of domestic abuse can apply for the transfer of the tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy. The amendment is welcome and it gives the victim support and another option as to the action they can take to protect themselves and their children. If they want to stay in their home, they can stay and get the abuser out.

I hope for a very positive response from the Government. Hopefully we can find a solution at the next stage.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, set out, Amendment 163 seeks to allow victims of domestic abuse who have a joint social tenancy with the perpetrator to transfer the tenancy into their own name and to prevent the perpetrator from unilaterally ending the tenancy.

We certainly recognise and sympathise with the motivation behind this amendment, as expressed very eloquently by all noble Lords who have spoken. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, abusers who seek to control their victims by threatening to unilaterally end a tenancy and make their victim homeless—or indeed who actually do make them homeless in this way—are exercising a particularly cruel form of control.

The amendment would apply to local authority and housing association tenancies. By way of background—as I am sure noble Lords will know—these social tenancies are usually in place for a tenant’s lifetime, as long as the tenant adheres to the terms of the tenancy and, as such, a lifetime security of tenure is a valuable asset. That is why we are including provisions in the Bill which seek to protect the security of tenure for victims of domestic abuse when they are granted a new tenancy by a local authority for reasons connected to that abuse.

The current legislation means that, where any joint tenant of a periodic tenancy serves a notice to quit, it ends the whole tenancy and the landlord is able to seek possession of the property. This is a long-standing rule, which has been established in case law and was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case of Sims v Dacorum Borough Council. The rule seeks to balance the interests of each joint tenant, as well as those of the landlord. For example, a victim of domestic abuse who has a joint tenancy with the perpetrator, and who has fled their home to escape abuse, would be able to end the tenancy to ensure that they are no longer bound to it with their abuser.

We do recognise that, in some cases of domestic abuse, as noble Lords have pointed out today, a perpetrator could use this rule to exert control. We understand how this proposed new clause seeks to overcome this important issue. The victim through it would be able to apply to the court to remove the perpetrator from the tenancy, which would effectively transfer the tenancy into the victim’s name. The perpetrator would also not be able to end the tenancy unilaterally.

We have certainly looked carefully at it and I am afraid we have some concerns with the effect of the amendment as drafted. One is that the amendment does not consider how any liabilities that might have occurred during the course of the joint tenancy, such as accrued rent arrears or damage to the property, would be apportioned between the tenants. As the perpetrator would no longer be a tenant, they would no longer be liable. That certainly ought to be considered. As a result, the victim and any remaining joint tenants would be left responsible for any liabilities, even if they were not fully responsible for contributing to them. We need to ensure that the victim and any remaining joint tenants are not put at any disadvantage by changes to the law in this area.

Another concern, picking up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is that the amendment does not provide for how the interests of third parties—including the interests of any other joint tenants, children, or those of the landlord—might be taken into account by the court.

It is for landlords to decide whether to grant a tenancy for their property, and on what basis. This amendment would mean that, where a landlord grants a joint tenancy to two or more individuals, the number of tenants could be changed without consideration or consent from the landlord as the owner of the property. Landlords may decide to grant a joint tenancy for a number of reasons, including affordability and because joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for paying rent or looking after the property. In addition, this could result in interference with a housing association landlord’s own rights under human rights law. Since this engages other parties’ human rights, including those of the perpetrator, we need to consider very carefully the right approach in order to balance those rights, and to ensure that any interference is proportionate and justified.

It is important that we carefully consider the practical and legal issues, such as these, before we decide what the right approach is to protect victims in this situation, and whether that includes making changes to legislation so that we can ensure that any proposals have the outcomes which I am sure all noble Lords intend them to have.

Today’s debate has certainly contributed to that process. We would welcome further evidence on the scale of the issue, including how many victims wish to remain in a property where the perpetrator knows where they live. I understand that officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are continuing to engage with the domestic abuse commissioner and her office, as well as the domestic abuse sector more widely, on the termination of joint tenancies in order better to understand this issue.

We understand how important this issue is as part of a whole housing approach. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work that is being done by the domestic abuse and social housing sectors together in supporting victims of domestic abuse. I am aware that many landlords are already committed to taking action through sector-led initiatives such as the Making a Stand pledge.

I am very happy to underscore our commitment to continue working with the sector in considering these issues, with a view to arriving at a workable solution. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lords for their contributions today, which have contributed to that important debate. We will certainly continue to consider it, but in the meantime I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

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

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord’s explanation. Could I just ask that the noble Lord reflects on this after the debate? The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has identified a really practical issue here. It is real. This will be our one chance to sort it out in this Bill. When the noble Lord gave some of his answers, I just thought, “Really?” I just think he needs to think about it more. This is a simple solution to a real problem. I am sure he talks to the charities and to the commissioner. The abuser can cause the victim real problems here. They will deliberately do that and we need to stop that. I hope he can reflect on that and that we can have this discussion again on Report and seek a solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Lib Dem group strongly supports this group of amendments—noble Lords might have already guessed that from the number of Liberal Democrat speakers we have had already this afternoon—so I shall try to be brief. It is a hugely important group of amendments because it takes us off the back foot in dealing with perpetrators and gives us a chance of keeping track of them, preventing further offending and helping them to change their behaviour for good. We have heard several harrowing examples, and several noble Lords have made the point in respect of Amendment 167 that it is the perpetrator who must change, not the victim.

Amendment 164 strengthens the ability of the law to register and track serial stalkers and domestic abusers so that they can be registered on ViSOR, the violent and sex offender register, and be subject to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA. I add my thanks to Laura Richards, founder of the Paladin group, for her excellent briefing. Domestic abuse and stalking are the only areas of offending where serial abusers are not routinely and proactively identified and managed by police, probation and the prison service across the UK. This has serious consequences for the safety of women and children. There are many pockets of excellent good practice across the country but no systematic approach and no systematic tracking—a failure of systems so tellingly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Her story of Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper will stay with me for a long time.

My noble friend Lady Brinton strongly argues that we desperately need a strong, national, co-ordinated approach, and cited several harrowing examples, including her own, to prove her case. She calls this “murder in slow motion” and talks about under-reporting and inaccurate reporting on the MAPPA database, as have several other noble Lords. As things stand, the stalker or abuser can remain one step ahead, free to pick his next unwitting victim with a head start on the police, whose response between different forces is patchy. This is not good enough: now is the time and this is the place to lay down legislation to get on the front foot—legislation based on facts, not ideology, as urged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.

Amendment 167, to which I have added my name, requires the formation of a national perpetrator strategy. I understand that the Government instituted the first ever fund for perpetrator work last October, but I gather that there are big teething problems. Will the Minister update the Committee on this, and particularly the fact that part of the fund allocated for research must be spent by the end of this financial year, but the research bodies have only just been informed of their grants and have not even received the go-ahead to start spending? Can the Minister confirm that this deadline will be extended?

I and many other noble Lords are very grateful to the Drive Project for its briefing. It shocks me to learn that Drive, whose work has already been commended, including by my noble friend Lord Strasburger, says that only 1% of perpetrators get a specialist intervention that might help prevent further abuse, yet research shows that one perpetrator in four is a repeat offender, and some have up to six victims. It is a vicious cycle. Drive’s work has shown how perpetrator interventions can stop this cycle, which not only blights whole families, but spreads like a canker down the generations.

We invest huge amounts of money in dealing with the damage perpetrators have wrought, but that is next to nothing compared to stopping the vicious cycle and enabling perpetrators to turn their and their families’ lives around. Investment now will benefit untold numbers of people, not just those directly affected today. Let us pass this amendment, and reap the rewards today and into the future.

Amendment 177B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very similar to Amendment 167 but is more generous to the Government, giving them two years to establish a comprehensive perpetrator strategy. If the Government will commit to two years today, that is a done deal as far as I am concerned.

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

My Lords, like others, I thank Laura Richards for her excellent briefing, which has been a precursor to an excellent debate on these amendments. I fully support Amendment 164, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Brinton, as I do Amendment 167 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, which I was delighted to sign, and Amendment 177B tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

With these three amendments the Government have effectively been given a whole range of options to choose from. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s Amendment 177B would require the Government to lay before Parliament a national perpetrator strategy within two years of the Bill passing into law. I agree with my noble friend Lady Royall that my noble friend Lord Hunt is probably being a bit too generous to the Government in allowing them two years. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, would require a comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention and how to deal with perpetrators within one year of the passing of this Bill into law. The lead amendment in this group from my noble friend Lord Hunt sets out a comprehensive framework in which to deal with perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers, and would require a report to be laid before Parliament within six months of the Bill being enacted.

It was good to hear my noble friend set out a range of organisations that support this multiagency approach. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for her years of work on this issue. She has raised these matters again and again, and we are all very grateful to her for that.

We have heard previously that domestic abuse, coercive control and stalking are escalating crime: the behaviours can persist over many years and escalate, and more crimes of increasing levels of abuse and harm are committed. This amendment raises the need for joined- up, multiagency working in tackling and managing perpetrators in the community. My noble friend Lord Hunt highlighted two horrific cases where a proper, all-encompassing approach is needed to deal with these perpetrators.

I recalled, while listening to this debate, the day I spent at the domestic violence unit of the Metropolitan Police in the Royal Borough of Greenwich—I still recall the horrific acts of violence I was apprised of. I was so impressed with the officers in the unit and the way they worked closely with the local authority. It is quite clear that, by working together, the council and the police officers of the unit were helping victims and saving them from further abuse and, in some cases, the risk of being murdered.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who spoke about this multiagency approach and referred to research by Durham University and London Metropolitan University. It was good to see that violence inflicted on victims reduced when that work took place. I also endorse her comments on internet companies and platforms. I know we will come to this in another Bill, but these companies, which are making a lot of money, really need to step up to ensure that their tools are not used to aid abusers. We need to deal with that very soon.

As many noble Lords mentioned, we need a culture change. We need to get to a situation where these offences are viewed as totally unacceptable and as the disgusting, evil acts they are. That culture change is what this strategy is all about. We must break the cycle where children witness abuse—I think the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned this—and risk becoming the abused or abusers many years later. To do that, we need effective action.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, mentioned drink-driving, I remembered watching a programme featuring Barbara Castle, who got death threats for introducing the breathalyser. She appeared on a programme called “The World This Weekend”, where the journalist said to her that it was a rotten idea to bring in the breathalyser. He said, “You’re only a woman; you do not drive; what do you know about it?” Thankfully, things have changed, but I hope we get to a point where these disgusting offences are viewed as we view drink-drivers today, who now face bans and fines, risk imprisonment in serious cases and at best are viewed as completely reckless, irresponsible, stupid idiots. That is the sort of culture we need here: let us get to a place where we can have that, because women’s lives will be saved, we will have better men and better, happier relationships, and we will not have children witnessing abuse and becoming abusers or victims in later life. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, also referred to that in her contribution.

My noble friend Lord Rooker talked again about breaking silos in government. He was a Minister for many years in the previous Labour Government and knows all about how government works. I very much agree with him. I have a similar problem campaigning to get these GP letters banned: I am tackling the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have four departments trying to get it sorted out, but I hope that we will finally get somewhere on that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said we need to get the outcomes right. I fully support that.

It is always a privilege to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Her story about Cheryl Hooper was harrowing, but sadly not unique. As I said, when I went to the domestic violence unit at Greenwich they gave me a number of redacted statements to read. What struck me in reading about these awful events was that they were not some story, but were happening to real people—the most appalling things being done by one human being to another. It was dreadful. All these things started off with, “I met someone; we were happy; then the abuse escalated.” It gets to the point where people are at real risk of losing their lives.

I did not agree with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Of course perpetrators can be rehabilitated—we want people to be rehabilitated —but what we are proposing is about protecting victims and developing a strategy to control perpetrators, help victims and save lives, and to stop the years of abuse that victims can suffer. Some may not be killed, but can undergo years of abuse and a terrible life. We must stop that.

I also do not agree that there is some suggestion or implication in the briefings or from noble Lords’ comments that this offence is committed only by working-class people. I think I have been here for most of the debates and I have not seen that. I do not believe it either. I come from a working-class background, having grown up on a council estate near Elephant and Castle, and I just do not believe that is the case. I have also been told by the police that, when they get the perpetrators in, they are from all walks of life—they can be very rich people with well-paid jobs who are doing very well, such as lawyers. All sorts of people across the spectrum can be victims or perpetrators. That is one of the things about this offence; it does not affect any one group, and we need to ensure we get that right.

I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about the determining factor with children; we must stop that. We can all point to things that have happened. The one thing that was a real shame was disbanding the Sure Start programme from 2010 onwards. That was a mistake. The centres are the family hubs that he talks about.

This has been a good debate and I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response. I hope at the next stage of this Bill we can come forward with the strategy to put in it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I may have misheard the Minister, but did not she say that one of her reasons for not accepting any of the amendments was that it would be restrictive to place these things in the Bill? You can perhaps argue that Amendment 164 is a bit more prescriptive, but the other two amendments, other than setting a time limit for a report, set no restrictions at all. They would just steer the Government to get on with the matter in good time. Beyond that, I do not see that they are restrictive at all.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The point I was trying to make—and I hope the noble Lord will accept it—is that we do not need to put it in the Bill, because you are always restricted by primary legislation. But I voiced my intention that the Government want to do this.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 182, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt, adds paid leave to the support employers will be expected to give. The CIPD and the union Unison are also recommending paid leave, but I have stopped short of that in this amendment, not because I disagree with paid leave but because, given the degree of ignorance of some employers, I would prefer time to be given for awareness and understanding to bed in before potentially alienating unenlightened employers by hitting them in their pockets. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 174, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. As she explained, the amendment will require the Secretary of State to

“issue a code of practice … containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer”.

There is an important issue here: as the noble Baroness told us, work may often be the only place where a victim can escape their abuser. An abuser, of course, may want to disrupt and cause the victim as many difficulties as possible, maybe with a view to driving them out of work, to make them more economically dependent on them or to drive them to destitution, so they are forced to rely further on the abusive partner.

The code is important because it will provide guidance to employers on good practice, on what the employer should be doing to get this right. Paragraph (6) of the proposed new clause puts this on a statutory footing and underpins the intent of the amendment. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of employers will want to do the correct thing and support their employee who is having difficulties, struggling and being abused, but they may not know what they could or should do. In that sense, the code is an important tool, because it will give the employer the guidance and direction needed to make, as the noble Baroness, said, those reasonable adjustments to support their employee.

My Amendment 182 seeks to put a requirement in the Bill that guidance provided by employers should include what support they should give the victims of abuse, including, as we have heard, the provision of paid leave. This is only guidance: in some ways, it is trying to do something similar to what Amendments 174 is doing but with the addition of paid leave, through guidance, rather than a code. It may or may not be more attractive to the Government; we will wait and see.

We must help victims of abuse. If they want to be in, or remain in, work, we have a duty to help them do that. It helps with their economic security, financial stability and even financial independence. When we talk about the issues in the Bill relating to domestic abuse, it is all about control—making people unable to be independent and completely dependent on their abuser. One of our tasks with the Bill must be to identify the points where the abuser seeks to take control and stop them exerting that control.

The relationship between employers and employees is important. The way in which employers can take reasonable action, make reasonable adjustments and take reasonable steps for victims of abuse on their payroll must be central to the aims of the Bill.

[Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 174 and 182.

In my former role as Victims’ Commissioner, I had the pleasure of meeting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, but it saddened me to hear that their workplace was the only thing that let them down, with no support from their colleagues. As has already been said, the workplace should be safe and somewhere where they feel they can escape from domestic abuse and coercive control. It should feel like a safe haven.

I have also met many victims who have gone back to work because, financially, they cannot afford to take time off. I was amazed to hear the story of a victim who was so upset that one of her colleagues went to the boss, saying that she could not cope. The victim was called into the office and asked to kindly keep her emotions to herself, as she was upsetting colleagues in the workplace. That story has never left me. It is hard enough to hold a job down, especially with the global pandemic, as we do not know what we will face when the lockdown is lifted and we are all able to go back to some kind of normality, but during the lockdown, victims of domestic abuse have experienced life in a pressure cooker environment. Therefore, we need to look at the workplace, and that is why I support both amendments.

There is a duty of care in the workplace. Workspaces, including the desk, the chair and the height of the monitor, have to be assessed. Surely it would be good if the designate domestic abuse commissioner worked with the Secretary of State on a code of practice to ensure that employers have a duty of care to give support to a person who is suffering domestic abuse.

We know that financial independence gives victims a way of empowering themselves and that a lack of such independence makes leaving a violent home a hard struggle. I know from speaking to victims who have left their home and gone into a refuge that they have had to give up their businesses and their independence. If they have money, they still have to pay the mortgage, and that is a hold that the perpetrator has on them.

A few years ago, I had the pleasure of going to a very early breakfast meeting with Jess Phillips from the other place. We had a meeting with the New Zealand MP Jan Logie, who was fighting to get paid leave for domestic abuse victims. I do not want to make too heavy a point about that but I applaud her success in getting that through the New Zealand Parliament after seven years of struggling to have her voice heard. She received applause in Parliament for getting that measure passed. Unfortunately, we know only too well that perpetrators like to use a pincer movement on their victims, especially with coercive control. As I have said in other speeches, they want to part their victims from their family and friends.

Our workplace is supposed to be somewhere where we can have open conversations. There might be a safe mentor whom you can talk to and unload the pressure so that you can go back to your home and relationship, having had some of the stress removed—albeit you will go through the same cycle again.

I support the amendments. I ask the Government to look at producing guidance on this issue, because we will see more and more people suffering financially, physically and mentally, and the perpetrator will enjoy every bit of that unless we empower the victim.

Health Measures at UK Borders

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as of yesterday, more than 109,000 people in the United Kingdom have died because of Covid-19. We mourn all those lost and think of their families, for whom life will never be the same again. We must learn from past mistakes. Rather than being world-beating or world-class, we have the highest death rate in the entire world, with, on average, more than 1,000 people dying each day. It is a shameful and tragic figure.

Right from the start of this pandemic, we have had too little, too late; we have ignored the problem, denied the problem and then panicked and made a U-turn. We all know the Prime Minister is not a man for details or consistency. We were told we were going to build a world-beating test and trace system. He told the country that we would turn the tide by June, then in July, he said that there would be a significant return to normality by Christmas. When the leader of the Opposition suggested a two-week circuit break, he was mocked by the Prime Minister, only for the Prime Minister to do exactly what he called for weeks later and weeks too late. And then there was the dreadful performance when he accused the leader of the Opposition of wanting to cancel Christmas, only to announce new restrictions on 19 December. The Prime Minister has ignored medical advice and there has been error after error, which has cost many lives.

Let us be clear: the vaccination programme is going well because of the fabulous NHS, the GPs, other health professionals, the military, the police and the volunteers who are working to get the country vaccinated. We thank them for their brilliant work. No contracts have been awarded without proper tendering procedures and no companies have been mysteriously formed and given millions of pounds without obvious identifiable experience or a track record in the area in question.

One key area where the Government have clearly fallen short is on protecting our borders. The measures outlined are another example of too little, too late. Limiting hotel quarantine to countries from which travel by non-EU residents was already banned means that the Home Secretary’s proposals do not go anywhere near far enough.

Mutations of the virus are undermining the efficiency of the vaccines and threatening life and hope. We cannot know where a mutation will emerge next. The truth is that the Government are once again behind the curve. This announcement is too limited. It leaves huge gaps in our defences against emerging strains. We know that strains that emerged in South Africa and Brazil have already reached these shores—that is little wonder given that the controls have been so lax, with just three in 100 people quarantining having been successfully contacted, and with border testing introduced only 10 months after the first lockdown. Even then, the start had to be delayed because the Government could not get the necessary systems in place.

Can the Minister tell the House how we can be assured that travellers will not arrive with emergent strains via countries that are not on the control list? What support has been made available to ensure improvements in quarantining compliance and the Isolation Assurance Service? Why has it taken so long to step up checks, when we know that the system has been failing for months? What discussions have taken place with hotel chains to ensure the availability of rooms? How often will the list of red list countries be reviewed and updated? Will it be based purely on the country of risk or on the capacity of UK quarantining facilities?

Travellers arriving in Scotland from any country outside the British Isles will be forced to quarantine in a hotel, whereas in England, only travellers from the red list countries will be required to quarantine. Does the Minister accept that the greatest barrier to a four-nation approach is the Westminster Government dragging their feet? For those people travelling out of the country, why is enforcement being stepped up only now?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government’s approach to border biosecurity appears to be all over the place. They previously had travel corridors in place, but they then scrapped these and imposed the requirement of a negative Covid test and 10 days’ quarantine on all arrivals into the UK, unless travellers pay for an expensive test-to-release scheme, where a further negative test five days after arrival in the UK can shorten the quarantine. Enforcement of these rules appears to be lax, to say the least.

The Government also introduced travel bans on direct flights and on non-UK citizens travelling from countries where the variants first identified in Brazil and in South Africa are prevalent, including Portugal, where many flights from Brazil arrive into Europe. The reason the Government gave was that this was on the basis that further research needed to be carried out on these variants to establish whether they were more contagious, more dangerous and more vaccine resistant. How closer are the Government to answering these three questions about the new variants and what criteria will need to be met on how contagious, dangerous or resistant they are before a decision can be made as to whether these restrictions can be lifted or varied?

The Government say that they are going to introduce compulsory hotel quarantine on UK nationals arriving from these so-called red list countries. How many rooms will be required? UKHospitality, the trade body representing the country’s hotels, said yesterday that it had no information on how the system might work, and leading hotel chains around Heathrow told PoliticsHome that they have not been contacted to assist with any type of scheme. When will the scheme be in place?

Her Majesty’s Official Opposition are calling for all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory hotel quarantine. The argument appears to be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has said, new Covid variants could occur anywhere in the world. However, Labour want the existing list of exemptions from quarantine on arrival into the UK to be maintained. This includes, for example, workers who travel at least once a week into and out of the UK.

Sir Keir Starmer said yesterday that 21,000 passengers arrived in the UK on Monday. What are the Government’s estimates of the hotel capacity required were all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory 10-day hotel quarantine? Taking the example of Australia, which has adopted such a policy, there are hundreds of thousands of Australian nationals unable to return home because of limited Covid-safe hotel capacity or because they cannot afford the cost of compulsory hotel quarantine. Do the Government expect similar problems here in the UK?

What consideration have the Government given to, at the very least, extending their ban on direct flights or on non-UK nationals from entering the UK, and extending their compulsory hotel quarantine policy for UK nationals, to include countries where there is no rapid genomic sequencing capacity? There, a new or existing Covid variant is unlikely to be identified quickly enough to prevent infections in the UK.

How much of a risk do travellers from outside the UK actually present? In the light of the high level of infections in the UK, both in terms of total numbers and as a proportion of the population, what is the probability that a new, more contagious, harmful or vaccine-resistant Covid variant will result from a mutation of the virus within in the UK, compared with the probability that this will occur in a country with few or no Covid infections? Is the recent E484K mutation of the variant first identified in Kent, that is similar to the variant first identified in South Africa, an example that the threat of dangerous mutations lies as much, if not more, within the UK as it does overseas?

Taking the examples of Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man or even Norway—where I am speaking from now—where Covid infections are low or non-existent, test and trace is effective, and where there is rapid genomic sequencing capability, what is the reasoning behind quarantining arrivals from such countries when they arrive in the UK. In short, what is the basis for the Government’s strategy towards border controls—if they have one? It certainly does not seem to be based on either science or common sense.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we have Amendment 57 in this group—or clutch—of amendments, pushing what I hope is an open door: the need for protection of abused or allegedly abused people not only at home. The Government have an amendment extending prohibition to other places, and another amendment relating to the workplace or educational establishment, and those are welcome. Other noble Lords will speak to their amendments using terminology about where the abuser or alleged abuser lives or works. Amendment 79 would allow for discretion when both parties worked in the same place.

Our Amendment 57 is similar to the Government’s amendment, but it applies to domestic abuse protection notices, whereas the Government’s amendment is about domestic abuse protection orders. I regard notices as preventative—not leading inevitably to an order. It is far better, to state the obvious, if one can head off abuse by a notice. Perhaps I am naive in hoping so, but I note that the Minister’s letter or the draft guidance recently circulated—I cannot remember which one—makes the same point. In any event, reasons for including the workplace and other premises as prohibited, apart from the home, can surely apply when a notice is given as well as subsequently. As a matter of drafting, I wondered why Clause 21(2) was necessary, since it seems to be covered by Clause 21(1), but that is not the issue and it certainly makes the point as to what is covered. I suspect that others are going to make very similar points, but I beg to move Amendment 57.

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

My Lords, Amendments 58, 59, 60, 74, 76, 77 and 79 are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak in support of them, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Newlove.

These workplace amendments were discussed in the other place and it is right that we make it absolutely clear in the Bill that domestic abuse protection orders and the notices that precede them can cover a victim’s workplace as well as their home. Presently, the Bill says only that a perpetrator can be prevented from coming within a certain distance of where a victim lives. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has tabled Amendment 75, which uses the term “specified premises”, but I would prefer the word “workplace” in the Bill, as that is stronger. The amendments I am proposing would ensure that those making domestic abuse protection notices and orders had the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.

The Government have said that they would expect a domestic abuse protection order to include restrictions on a perpetrator’s access to where the victim works if the court considered it necessary. However, expectation is not strong enough; the workplace should be referred to explicitly. Work is an important part of people’s lives; other than their home, it is the one place where they are present during fixed hours, normally in a fixed place. That makes a person vulnerable and victims need the added protection that my group of amendments would bring.

There is also the issue of the perpetrator seeking to drive a victim out of work to wreck their economic circumstances, as well as the other horrors they are seeking to inflict on a victim. Women have been murdered at work and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that victims are protected in all aspects of their lives. In 2005, Clare Bernal was killed by her ex-boyfriend—who worked on the same premises as she did—while she was at work. In 2010, Jane Clough was murdered by her ex-boyfriend as she walked into work. In 2014, Hollie Gazzard was murdered by her partner at her place of work. In 2016, four women were murdered in their workplaces by men. All these women would have benefited from stronger workplace protections.

The TUC undertook a survey and found that 47.3% of respondents said that their abusive partner turned up at their workplace and 43.6% said that they stalked them outside their workplace. Without the scope to extend domestic abuse protection orders to the workplace, victims will continue to be harassed, threatened and assaulted at work by abusive partners. Their job prospects and safety will continue to be threatened, and, tragically, as we have heard, in some cases they will be murdered.

Government Amendment 78 states that domestic abuse protection orders should avoid interfering with the perpetrator’s work, rather than, more specifically, their usual times of work. This should mean that in cases where a perpetrator and victim share a place of work, the perpetrator’s work patterns can be adapted to ensure the victim remains in work safely. It will be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, can confirm that that is the intention when he responds at the end of this debate, and that that will be made clear in any guidance issued by the Government.

This is a really important issue; victims need certainty and clarity to provide them with the protection they need. I hope that at the end of this debate we can get a positive statement that we need to look at this further and come back to it on Report.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to my noble friend’s amendments on the workplace. I am grateful to Unison, of which I am a member, for its briefing on this.

Like my noble friend, I am convinced of the need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected at work and that their employers do everything that they can to support them. Domestic abuse is a trade union and workplace issue, as much as any other form of abuse that affects workers’ conditions and income. Home and work issues cannot always be neatly separated. Abusive and violent behaviour does not take place only in the home, but frequently crosses over into the workplace, where victims can experience stalking, threats, harassment and worse. Equally, work can be a lifeline to independent survival for victims of domestic abuse, as they ought to be able to leave their home and maintain a level of income independent from the perpetrator.

All victims should feel safe in the knowledge that they can take action to put their lives back on track with their employment secure, and to be protected while they are at work. This is an important area on which the Government must focus more. I would like to see the remit of domestic abuse protection orders explicitly extended to cover the workplace. They are, after all, intended to secure the immediate protection of a victim from a suspected perpetrator and set out the prohibitions and requirements necessary to do so. Under the current wording of the Bill, an order may prohibit a perpetrator from coming within a certain distance of the premises lived in by the victim. However, as we heard from my noble friend, there is no mention of the victim’s workplace. Originally, the Government said that they would expect a DAPO to include restrictions on a perpetrator’s access to where the victim worked only if the court considered it necessary, which is not explicit.

My noble friend has referred already to a TUC survey from 2015 which found that one in 10 of those who experienced domestic violence reported that the violence continued in the workplace. We surely must do more to ensure that victims will not be harassed at work by abusive partners threatening their job prospects—the importance of which I have referred to—and their safety.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the announcement last June that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was undertaking a review of support in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse. Very recently, the key findings from that review were published, alongside the areas of work that the Government will take forward as a result. The report identifies that an effective employer response is founded on being able to spot the signs of domestic abuse and know how to signpost to specialist services. It also sets out the steps which the Government will take to work with employers to raise awareness of domestic abuse as a workplace issue. This is obviously very important. The outcome of the review also focuses on what best practice looks like and the positive role that employers can play. It also discusses the role that employment rights can play in giving employers and employees the certainty that they need.

The Government have promised to consider through a consultation the steps which can be taken for victims of domestic abuse, as well as to consult on taking forward their manifesto commitment to

“encourage flexible working and consult on making it the default unless employers have good reasons not to.”

This is clearly progress. I welcome it, and the amendment from the Government in this group that enables a court making a domestic abuse protection order to prohibit the person against whom it is made from coming within a specified distance of other premises, in addition to those where the person to be protected by the order lives. This is in parallel to the other amendment from the Government, which makes it clear that the requirements imposed on a person by a domestic abuse protection order, so far as practicable, must not interfere with the person’s work or their attendance at an educational establishment.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) (V)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have highlighted the link between domestic abuse and communication needs—both in how abuse can lead to communication difficulties and how important communication ability is, so that victims can express the impact that domestic abuse has had on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, brings her wealth of professional experience to reinforce these points.

Disability discrimination includes when you are treated less well or put at a disadvantage for a reason that relates to your disability in one of the situations covered by the Equality Act 2010, such as when you use public services or have contact with public bodies. Those with communication needs would be included in that. I understand the particular concerns of those noble Lords who are promoting these amendments, but I wonder whether the protections of the Equality Act are sufficient. However, I hear the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that these protections need to be embedded.

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

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the Committee to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. These Benches welcome and support all the amendments in this group.

Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to put a clear statement in the Bill that, in encouraging good practice as required by Clause 7, the domestic abuse commissioner must include identification of and response to any speech and communication needs that people have. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, using his extensive experience of work in the criminal justice system, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, gave us a clear example of why this is so important. My noble friend Lady Andrews made a point about how important it is to be able to use language to express and defend yourself. My noble friend also made the point that children witnessing abuse of a parent by another parent or partner is a horrific form of abuse. We have heard from other noble Lords that lifelong damage can be caused to a child who witnesses that form of abuse.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in an important and thoughtful contribution, explained to us the difficulties that he suffered 25 years ago and the effect that they had on his speech at the time. His contributions are always valued and respected in the House, and I am very sorry to learn that he feels that that is not the case.

I cannot see who would not agree with any of the amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 22, seeks to ensure that support is available and generally accessible to every victim. We may be told in a moment by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this amendment or these amendments are not needed, and that support is implied anyway. That may be so, and I am sure the noble Lord will set out his case shortly, but I think he needs to go further and that the Government have to provide every reassurance necessary. It may be that the noble Lord thinks that the provisions are adequately covered under Clause 7(2)(a) and (b), along with the powers set out in Clause 9. If that is the case, can the noble Lord make that expressly clear in his reply to this debate?

Amendment 92 seeks again to put a commitment in the Bill that a local authority will identify and respond to speech, language and communication needs when preparing its strategy for the support of domestic abuse victims—something that I and many other noble Lords fully support. Again, when responding to the debate, if the noble Lord thinks that this amendment is unnecessary and is going to rely on the powers set out in Clause 55(8) and (9)(b), and/or the powers contained under guidance in Clause 58, can he confirm than the Secretary of State will address the issue specifically through one of these routes?

Amendment 110 seeks to address the same issue as the previous amendments, this time in respect of providing proper support for victims during court proceedings. Again, if we are to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this amendment is also not necessary, it would be helpful to have reassurances on the record that these important issues will be fully addressed by the rules of the court or other provisions.

Finally, Amendment 187 seeks to put points in the section related to guidance in the Bill that have been raised in previous amendments, along with the important issue of children witnessing domestic abuse and the effect that has on speech, language and communication needs, which many noble Lords raised in this short debate, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to this short debate.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his work as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, as he set out in opening this debate. The ability to communicate is a crucial life skill, so I welcome all the work that he and my noble friend Lord Shinkwin do in this area. He brought passion and personal insight to his contribution to the debate today. We are all extremely glad to have his voice, and the benefits of his experience and extensive work, in your Lordships’ House.

We all know that domestic abuse has a devastating impact on all its victims, and recognising the specific needs of individual victims is essential. Those facing communication barriers are, arguably, some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, given the added difficulties that they have when it comes to speaking out or asking for support. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, gave two powerful examples in his speech from his experience as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as a former police officer, I find being critical of the police difficult but sometimes necessary. Couple that with the fact that I am a survivor of domestic abuse and all I can say is: wish me luck with this one.

I will first speak to Amendment 62, which deals with a senior police officer having to take into account the previous criminal history of the person he is considering giving a domestic abuse prevention notice to. I find myself in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in that, regrettably, I was not provided with the briefings from the LSE. We need to be careful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has highlighted. Clearly, police officers attending an incident of domestic abuse should routinely check on the antecedents of the parties involved, but the issuing of a domestic abuse prevention notice should be based on whether the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to give the notice to protect the person from domestic abuse there and then.

The fact that someone has no criminal record does not mean that they do not present a danger to the complainant, and neither does someone having a criminal past mean that they present a danger to this particular victim. I draw a parallel with someone accused of a criminal offence, whose previous convictions are not normally revealed to a court until after their guilt has been established because the court must determine the facts of the case before it. Having said that, previous evidence of abuse of the current victim by the perpetrator in question is clearly an important factor.

Amendments 23 and 28 in this group require the domestic abuse commissioner to encourage good practice in the appropriate use of data and technology to aid in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse, including making recommendations to public authorities in these areas. The fact that we are debating these amendments has given a great opportunity for the LSE research to be brought to the attention of noble Lords.

As such, what the amendments are asking for is a subset of Clause 7(2)(b), on

“making recommendations to any public authority”.

While this is important, I am not sure it requires to be in the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, highlighted important research into how artificial intelligence—AI—and machine learning could be used to improve responses to domestic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, also highlighted the importance of silent reporting, especially during lockdown.

As my noble friend Lord Dholakia has said, Amendment 50, to which I have added my name, allows the commissioner to request information from public authorities. We have heard his concerns, reinforced by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, about the failure of the Greater Manchester Police to record crime that has been reported to it, particularly violent crime.

This has been a recurrent theme with the police service over the years, particularly with the police failing to take domestic violence seriously. From my own professional experience, I recall getting into trouble, many years ago, when I arrested a man who had broken a chair over his wife’s head—something that I should not have done, according to the prevailing culture at the time, because victims of domestic abuse often do not want action taken against the perpetrator. In this case, the victim had to be treated in hospital for her injuries, and, once treated, she did not want to take action against her husband, something I found difficult to understand until I became a victim of domestic violence myself.

From my own personal experience as a survivor, I know that perpetrators of domestic violence are very good at convincing you that there is no alternative to the abusive relationship you are in and that the pain they inflict is the price you have to pay for their affection. I must tell anyone in such an abusive relationship: you can, and you deserve to, have a loving relationship without the pain.

Although attitudes have changed in the police service, with prosecution of domestic abuse possible even without the consent of the victim—if there is physical evidence of assault, for example—we need to ensure that the police do not slip back into old practices, as Greater Manchester Police appears to have done in not recording crime, including violent crime and, no doubt, incidents of domestic abuse.

The Minister wrote to those who spoke at Second Reading and addressed this issue directly, including the issues in the Greater Manchester Police, following the publication on 10 December of the findings of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescues Services’ inspection of the service GMP provided to victims of crime. What the Minister says in that letter, for me, gives more cause for concern than reassurance. It says that the inspection is the first of HMICFRS’s new victim services assessment that assesses the end-to-end experience of victims, from the first report of a crime to its outcome. In this case, it included an inspection of the effectiveness of GMP’s crime recording processes. If this was the first inspection of this kind, what will future inspections of other forces unearth? GMP is unlikely to be alone.

If, as the letter says, since 2014, HMICFRS has carried out a discrete programme of police crime recording inspections, known as crime data integrity inspections, why have the problems at GMP only now been discovered? The Minister goes on to describe the process where HMICFRS makes recommendations to the chief officer of police for the force concerned, and says that “our expectation” is that the chief officer will take remedial action. Washing their hands of all responsibility, the Minister goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the local policing body, the mayor or police and crime commissioner to

“publish their comments and response to any recommendations for improvement made by HMICFRS.”

This is about the culture of the police service, which has in the past sought to reduce the pressure it is under by failing to record crime, including violent crime, and a culture that shies away from taking effective action against the perpetrators of domestic violence. This may be driven by the experience of reluctant victims, as I illustrated earlier, but perhaps it may also stem from a predominantly male police service that identifies with, or even empathises with, the perpetrator of domestic abuse. Yes, there have been improvements over the years, but what has been unearthed in Greater Manchester Police should set alarm bells ringing, not just at HMICFRS or among local policing bodies but at the Home Office and in the office of the Home Secretary.

In a private conversation with me, a former very senior police officer speculated that diversity goes out of the window when the police service comes under pressure, as it has done over the past decade, with the savage cuts to police budgets and corresponding reductions in police officers, police community support officers and support staff. The evidence from GMP is that victim care may also be a casualty. I also cite the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the police are not responding quickly enough because they are wrongly assessing the risk and have a lack of resources. Cuts to budgets, support staff and the money available for IT systems inhibit the kind of data analysis that the LSE is recommending.

The potential consequences for the victims of domestic abuse of soft-pedalling on issues surrounding diversity, and on the failure to record crime, are alarming, and the Home Secretary needs to take responsibility. This is central, as all the potential positive outcomes from the Bill will be impaired if we do not know the nature and extent of the problem. That, in turn, relies on victims of domestic abuse having confidence in the police service and knowing that, when they report domestic abuse to the police, they will be believed and it will be recorded and acted upon.

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

My Lords, how we protect, store and use data affects almost every aspect of our lives. The use of data to protect victims and catch the perpetrators of domestic violence, with encouragement of best practice by the domestic abuse commissioner, is something that every noble Lord should support. Data can tell us much about what has gone on before and that can inform our thinking going forward.

Amendment 23, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would, in proposed new paragraph (e), add to the list of things in which the domestic abuse commissioner must encourage good practice. My noble friend gave us examples based on the LSE research and said how important a proper risk assessment is in triggering the effective and proper use of resources to protect victims. I look forward to the response to this from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. As I said on a previous group, if we are told that the amendment is not necessary, it is incumbent on the Government to set out very clearly how they believe the powers in the Bill are sufficient to deal with the concerns raised in the amendments in respect of the general duty under Clause 7(1) and (2) and any other proposed legislation. We would like to have that clarity from the noble Baroness.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would add two things that the domestic abuse commissioner may do in pursuance of the general duty under Clause 7. Again, we need clarity from the Government on this. My fear is that the duty could be viewed as so wide and open that things could fall through the gaps. We need something to underpin that, with an indication from the Government of what this list of things should cover. I hope we all agree about the good intent behind the amendment. The risk is that we are being too vague to deliver what we all want to deliver.

Amendment 50, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, is very reasonable, but, again, if the Government view it as unnecessary, we need to hear very clearly whether they are relying on Clause 15(1) to ensure that the domestic abuse commissioner has the necessary power and that there is no doubt that co-operation includes the provision of data from the public authority in question. In the past, we have seen public authorities query the need to provide such data. I never want to hear them giving some spurious reason relating to GDPR or any other regulation, or saying that they cannot provide data due to custom and practice. We have all heard those infuriating and unacceptable reasons given in the past, so it is clear that we need to make sure that that cannot happen again.

Amendment 62, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seems to be a no-brainer. I have never been a police officer and am not a lawyer but, when I speak in this House, I try to apply plain common sense to things. That has served me reasonably well over the last few years. If a person who might be served a domestic abuse protection notice has a criminal record and the nature of the offences could be relevant, surely that is valid information for a police officer to have available when making a decision on whether to serve a notice. My noble friend highlighted past failures in the system, so that is a risk that we should avoid.

I listened very carefully to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I agree that of course we have to be very careful about how people’s data is used, but if somebody has convictions for violence, such as violence against women and other serious offences, it is not unreasonable that a police officer should be aware of that when considering whether to serve a notice. Clause 22 lists four matters that a police officer needs to look at when considering whether a person, referred to as “P”, could be subject to a notice. They are all very reasonable and a police officer considering a person’s previous criminal history might be the most important.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I think the Minister’s answer will again be yes, as she clarified this issue in her last remarks. Clause 22, on these other matters, says

“a senior police officer must, among other things, consider”,

and then lists four issues that they must consider. Among those “other things” is of course someone’s previous record. I ask her to clarify that further.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think it is yes to everything. The whole context has to be taken into account when issuing both a DAPN and a DAPO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, this short group is another attempt by the Lib Dem team to ensure that the domestic abuse commissioner has all the powers that she needs. Amendment 24 addresses the need for the commissioner to be able to research and publish information about perpetrators. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his supportive comments on this. We believe that unless we understand perpetrator behaviour, we will never be able to tackle it effectively and make effective interventions. Amendment 26 would widen the recommendations the commissioner can make to voluntary organisations and others as well as to public authorities. Again, we are attempting to widen the remit and those powers. These are small amendments but we hope they are helpful in spelling out the extent of the remit the commissioner should have.

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

My Lords, I support the three amendments in this group, which raise important issues. It is right that the domestic abuse commissioner should also assess, monitor and publish information about perpetrator behaviour, as getting more information about and understanding of perpetrator behaviour will be crucial for informing us about how it should be handled in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has tabled a more comprehensive amendment, Amendment 167, on a strategic plan. I was pleased to sign it, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. Rather than these amendments, Amendment 167 probably gives us the detail we need . However, in principle, I support the amendments before us today and will speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, when we get to it later in Committee.

Amendments 25 and 26 raise important issues and widen the scope of the domestic abuse commissioner’s remit to make recommendations to voluntary organisations. I fully support that. I am conscious that Amendment 26 would add the words about “making recommendations to” organisations outside the UK. I am very supportive of that, although some of our behaviour in recent years has not helped our standing outside the United Kingdom—but that is probably for another day. In principle, I am happy to support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support these amendments, although, like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I lack the knowledge, skills and experience of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Stroud. I therefore add our support for this suite of amendments, focusing as they do on the prevention of domestic abuse by making it a top priority for the commissioner, the advisory board and the local partnership boards. I also strongly support the emphasis on children and the need for therapy services all over the country, as elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

As we know, abuse is a cycle. The abused child all too frequently turns into the abuser, and generation begets generation of misery and pain. Unless there is an intervention to break this cycle, we will still be wrestling with this subject for years and, indeed, generations to come. There are other excellent amendments to come tackling this issue, so I will leave my comments there for now.

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

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I am happy to give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but, again, have no expertise in this area. Of course, prevention is absolutely the key, and the point the noble Baroness made about the importance of ensuring that we take effective action to prevent children becoming abusers in the future is very important. You have to break this cycle, and I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that point.

I also think we have to be careful here that we are offering the right interventions at the right time. Professionals who are going to engage with partners and couples also need to be able to spot whether something is an area of conflict, but is not domestic abuse, or, equally, whether a situation is domestic abuse and actually needs a different intervention—they need to have the skills to understand that, and understand the difference. We would never want a situation where somebody remains in a relationship because they have had the wrong intervention. This is a very complicated area. We need professionals to provide the proper advice at the right time to ensure that if you can work to do that, fine, but equally there are times when people need to get out of a dangerous relationship. We need to ensure that professionals are able to spot that, and that you are building that knowledge and expertise into all the interventions that people can engage with.

On that basis, I am happy to support the amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling these amendments. I am pleased to see her looking so very much better. I hope that she is indeed feeling better, although she still has a bit of a cough. Her experience has been praised across the House, and I know how much she contributes to the debates in which she takes part. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, she brought into focus the real danger of the cycle of abuse and the importance of breaking it. As the noble Lord said, what we need here is the right interventions at the right time. There is strong evidence that conflict between parents, whether together or separated, can have significant impacts on children’s mental health and on long-term life chances. We can all agree on that.

We also highly value marriage, but must acknowledge that, for many reasons, such an arrangement will not suit everyone. Marriages have their difficulties; some couples do experience conflict and may decide that it is best for those involved to end their marriage. I recognise too the particular impact that this has on children and young people. That is not, of course, to negate the importance of couples’ counselling and access to psychological therapy services. They should not be underestimated and, in many cases, they lead to reconciliation of relationships, with steps to rebuild and repair. As the noble Baroness outlined, their value is immeasurable whatever the outcome of the relationship.

On mental health services, we are absolutely committed to our ambitions in the NHS long-term plan to expand and transform mental health services in England and to invest an additional £2.3 billion a year in them by 2023-24. Under the NHS long-term plan there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, ensuring that an additional 380,000 adults can access psychological therapies by 2023-24. It also commits to providing access to such therapies for specific groups, including expanding access to evidence-based psychological therapies within special perinatal mental health services, and parent, infant, couple, co-parenting and family interventions.

I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendments 27 and 41 relate to the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. The noble Baroness will know that Nicole Jacobs has undertaken significant action already as designate commissioner, including raising awareness of domestic abuse. She will also be responsible for monitoring and overseeing delivery of services to ensure that they are as effective, evidence-based and safe as they can be, as well as publishing information about the range of provision that currently exists for victims and survivors.

The commissioner’s general functions include the provision of support for people affected by domestic abuse. Within that, Clause 7 already provides that the commissioner may assess, monitor and publish information about the provision of services to people affected by domestic abuse. That might include the provision of relationship counselling and psychological therapy. I assure the noble Baroness that the substance of Amendment 27 is already captured by the remit of the commission as set out in Clause 7.

The Committee has heard a combination of views about ensuring the commissioner’s independence and a number of views on what she should be tasked with. The commissioner has a challenging role and will undoubtedly face many demands on her—many of them from your Lordships’ House. Respecting the independence of her office, we should leave it her to determine her priorities, as set out in her strategic plan, informed by the views of her advisory board. If we start writing into the Bill particular issues that the commissioner should address, we risk creating an unhelpful hierarchy of priorities which will constrain her freedom of action. Specifying in the legislation what should and should not feature in her strategic plan would restrict and hinder the very independence that the role requires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support this hugely important amendment. Public authorities of all kinds should be involved in identifying, signposting and providing services for victims. But unless they are properly trained in all these areas and work together, victims will continue to fall through the net and fail to be offered the services they need, or receive them to a good enough standard.

The amendment ensures that workers on the front line such as teachers, police, health workers and housing officers—“from job centres to GPs”, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong—know the signs of abuse when they see them, inquire sensitively and ensure that victims are put in touch with all the services that can help them. This is a huge operation, which is why the commissioner needs to play that pivotal role in ensuring that these bodies are up to the job and on the job. She can require reports on what has been done, how many have been trained and to what standards. She can ask how many potential victims have been approached and what outcomes have been achieved. The amendment specifies that there is nothing to stop authorities conducting their own training, but this should be as well as, not instead of, what the commissioner specifies. We want her to report on her work, findings and recommendations, every year.

We could go further. We should place a duty on these authorities to work together and the commissioner should oversee this co-ordinated effort, as well as the work of the separate authorities. The Minister may be tempted to say that this happens already. I am sure it does—to a degree. But unless the Minister can disabuse me, I do not think that any one person has responsibility for overseeing this co-operation and for requiring reports on work done, results and progress. I would be grateful if the Minister shared her thoughts with the House. I am hopeful, as she spoke from the heart in an earlier group about the effectiveness of multiagency interventions. This is urgent. We know that the pandemic has made the plight of victims even worse. It has shone a bright light on a dark place. Shame on us if we do not do our best to help as effectively and speedily as we humanly can.

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

My Lords, Amendment 53, proposed by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill. Every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has fully supported my noble friend’s amendment. The new clause would place a duty on all public authorities to provide training for their staff so that, when they engage with members of the public, they can spot the signs of abuse and can then ask the proper questions and offer appropriate help. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said, this is probably the most important amendment we have discussed today and one of the most important we have debated during consideration on this important and very good Bill.

People engage with public authorities through a range of services, such as local councils, the DWP and GPs. In some parts of the public sector, particularly the health service, people do ask such questions when they have somebody in front of them. As some noble Lords have said, although there may be training, it is very patchy and inconsistent. We are failing many victims. We want to be sure that we will have dealt with this problem by the time the Bill becomes law. When someone engages with the state, there must be people who can see the signs, understand the signals, ask the right questions and take appropriate action. Everyone must play their part in protecting the victims.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made reference to the police. There are some very good examples of excellent work that the police have done. I remember my visit to the domestic abuse unit at Greenwich, where really good work was taking place, in collaboration with the local authority, Greenwich Council. There was one case where officers had attended an incident and were suspicious about what was going on. They kept going back because they knew. Finally, they engaged with the person, got what they needed, got the person out and protected her. That understanding of the problem and engagement does not happen everywhere. We want every police force, across the whole of the United Kingdom, to follow that good example. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the officers who get called to a disturbance in the early hours of the morning are often the first people knocking on the door, so it is important that the police service in particular can deal with this.

My noble friend Lady Crawley made the point that having trained inquirers who know what to ask and what to do is so important in making sure that we make the difference. I also took on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the importance of training to recognise the special needs of the BAME community when dealing with issues of domestic abuse.

So I fully support the amendment and am hopeful of a positive response from the noble Baroness. I look forward to getting a resolution of this issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for tabling this amendment. The Government are in full agreement with its aims; we too want professionals to have the skills and confidence to ask the right questions about domestic abuse and take the appropriate action. I will not be making arguments about overburdening them, but rather suggesting how we think it might be achieved.

We absolutely want to embed understanding of domestic abuse in all agencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, what is the point if agencies do not know how to respond and cannot spot the signs? We want to ensure that there is strong recognition, from senior leadership through to front-line staff, of the importance of tackling domestic abuse. We want staff to ask about domestic abuse, because it is integral to their role and driven by professional curiosity. One of our concerns about introducing a statutory duty, to which noble Lords have alluded, is that it risks undermining professional judgment, and we do not want these sensitive and complex conversations to turn into some sort of tick-box exercise.

The Government are committed to taking wide-ranging action to improve understanding of domestic abuse across statutory agencies through guidance, targeted resources and training for responding agencies such as the police, social workers, healthcare professionals and universal credit work coaches. Work is already under way to strengthen the response from key agencies. In the health sector, front-line staff must undertake mandatory safeguarding training, which includes a focus on domestic abuse. The intercollegiate documents for child and adult safeguarding set out the core skills, competencies and knowledge expected for healthcare staff to be covered in the safeguarding training, and the level of training expected depending on their roles.

NHS England and NHS Improvement are strengthening safeguarding practice in local health systems through the updated NHS safeguarding accountability and assurance framework, and a new safeguarding commissioning assurance toolkit. Schedule 32 to the NHS standard contract sets out the service conditions for safeguarding, which include that the provider must implement comprehensive programmes of safeguarding training for all relevant staff and must have regard to the intercollegiate guidance on safeguarding training.

Domestic Abuse and Hidden Harms during Lockdown

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House today. I welcome a lot of what is in it but I wonder whether we are going fast enough to tackle effectively all the problems that we are all aware of. It was good to read about the launch of the Ask for ANI scheme, which is a real step forward. Can the Minister tell the House what her department has done to ensure in launching this scheme that, when a victim comes forward, there will be support beyond an initial phone call, and what co-ordination of resources has taken place to ensure that this happens in all cases?

The “stay at home” message for the pandemic is right, to help us defeat the virus, but we need to hear clearly from all quarters that individuals who wish to leave their homes to escape domestic abuse can do so. That message was not given in March, and it still needs to be said through an array of media platforms, because unless messages are repeated consistently, they just do not get through to those who need to hear them.

Getting funding to the front line is extremely important. Can the Minister tell the House why the £75 million of funding announced has been so slow in getting to the front line, with only a third of the money having been spent? Can she also tell us when the unspent £51 million will be allocated, and confirm that the £11 million extra is in excess of the £75 million already announced and not just a reannouncement of funding already pledged? That is a very important point to be clear on.

I pay tribute to all those who work in the refuge sector for the brilliant work that they do every day in keeping women and children safe. What is being done to increase capacity in the sector? Is the Minister confident that there will be the capacity to meet demand? What specific provisions have been made for specialised services for victims who are black, Asian, minority ethnic, migrants, LGBTQ, male or disabled? Children are often the hidden victims of domestic and sexual abuse in the home. What work is the Minister’s department doing to ensure that vulnerable children who are out of school are kept safe?

There are huge issues about how children are faring generally in the pandemic, and considerable justifiable concern over the significant failures of the Department for Education—everything from the food parcels being made available to families and the supply of computers, to understanding what it is like to grow up poor. Can the Minister reassure us that the Home Office is better equipped to deal with children and domestic abuse, sexual abuse, slavery and other issues that are their responsibility? We need to deal with those in a much better way than the Department for Education, given its record.

Looking at youth work, is there support for the proactive targeting of children—at the very least, those on child protection plans? What work has been done to reach children living in dangerous and violent homes? The £11 million of funding for the See, Hear, Respond scheme will target 50,000 children, not the three-quarters of a million children living in dangerous homes today. So can the noble Baroness tell us whether any of the schemes that have been announced will cover every child, so that all child victims can benefit, not just those in some areas, where a postcode lottery determines whether we fund a child’s safety? That surely cannot be a situation that we would want or would allow to continue.

Turning to independent child trafficking guardians—a scheme that we welcome—can the noble Baroness confirm that that support is available for all children trafficked in our country, as was promised some years ago by this Government, or is it still, as I understand, just a pilot for some areas, leaving some trafficked children without support?

Domestic abuse and community support services are currently planning for redundancies in March. That is shocking in the middle of a global pandemic and a national lockdown. What is the noble Baroness’s reaction to that? The staff being made redundant are the very people whom the Home Office and the noble Baroness need for the Ask for ANI scheme to have any chance of success. Can she confirm that there have been discussions with the sector and/or the Treasury about multiyear funding and putting an end to concerns that we have every financial year about dangerous year-on-year short-termism and redundancies in the sector?

With the thought of the lockdown carrying on until March, it is imperative that the Government act, and act faster than they have been doing. I have posed a number of questions to the noble Baroness and would be grateful for any response that she can give today from the Dispatch Box. Equally, I accept entirely that she might have to write to me on some of the points, and I would be delighted to accept a letter from her. Perhaps she could confirm that and agree that, if she writes to me, she will place a copy of the response in the Library of the House.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

I am grateful to the Government for the Statement and for all the things they are doing to support victims of domestic abuse in the pandemic and in the longer term through the Domestic Abuse Bill and in other ways. It seems clear thar the repercussions of Covid will last for a long time after we all emerge from the lockdown. Some victims will not report their abuse for years. Women’s Aid figures show an average of six years between the abuse beginning and a victim coming forward for help. So, we must put the support in place, ready for whenever it is needed.

There is no doubt that help is urgently needed now. The Government have announced £125 million for safe accommodation and £40 million for victims’ services, but there is still no clarity about when the money will reach services, and many face a cliff edge in March. Many are already preparing for the worst, including redundancy processes in some cases. Can the noble Baroness give any clarity on when funding will reach them? Can funding be planned on a longer-term basis so that services can focus on helping victims instead of worrying about having to close?

The Statement says that the £25 million emergency Covid funding has provided almost 1,900 bed spaces in safe accommodation. However, the Routes to Support database, which is the UK-wide directory of refuge vacancies, reported in November a net increase of only 317 spaces. Can the noble Baroness explain this huge shortfall?

The latest initiative being announced today, the “Ask for Ani” code for requesting help at selected pharmacies, is a great idea and very welcome. However, I wonder about the practicalities of how it is going to work. Training for staff will be absolutely vital if the victim is to be helped and not endangered further. Can the Minister confirm that the actual training consists of watching a video? Does she feel confident that people will feel confident and equipped to respond to a survivor effectively?

Finally, I make a helpful suggestion about victims who are migrant women with no recourse to public funds. I understand the considerable effort and money invested in a pilot project to investigate how best to help, and we have to be patient. However, while all this evaluation is taking place, women are suffering and dying because they are faced with the impossible choice of destitution or remaining with their abuser. Why not extend the destitution domestic violence concession to all victims, just for now? All victims deserve compassion and help, whatever their immigration status. Would not the Minister agree?

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this is a fascinating debate. I thank the Minister for bringing forward her Amendment 26 and for the opportunity that she gave me to speak to professionals, particularly the police, operating in this field.

My starting point is obviously the same as that of others: Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the protection of the interests of the child. I find myself in agreement with paragraph 63 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It concludes:

“The Bill must be amended to exclude children or”—


I agree in particular with this part—

“to make clear that children can only be authorised to commit criminal offences in the most exceptional circumstances.”

Of course, it is entirely regrettable that we might have to rely on children—those below the age of 18 and sometimes, as we heard in Committee and today, over the age of 12—in any shape or form. However, I remember from the limited time I spent in practice at the Scottish Bar that it was impressed on me that there are such circumstances. For the purposes of today’s debate, there are two separate circumstances that we need to focus on.

One is where a child might be asked to put themselves in a situation of risk—a situation that would rely even more on their consent than might otherwise be the case. But the situation that I think we should especially cover is where a child might already be in a situation of great risk to themselves or to their near family, particularly if they are migrants and are at risk of exploitation through trafficking for whatever reason—for example, modern-day slavery and sexual exploitation. I do not believe that currently the voices of those children are always heard. If they seek out a situation where they are prepared to keep themselves in harm’s way for the purposes of bringing evidence to the police and other authorities to enable and facilitate a successful prosecution, it would be absolutely mad for them to extricate themselves from that situation, provided they are given protections. Therefore, reluctantly, I accept that there are situations where children under the age of 18, and sometimes as young as 12, are already at risk but are doing themselves, their immediate peers, who might also be in that position, and indeed the justice system a great service by empowering evidence to be brought forward and to bring a successful prosecution.

I know that my noble friend Lord Young has put an enormous amount of work into his amendments, but the problem that I have—I think he recognises this himself—is that Amendment 12 is simply too prescriptive both on age, as it would remove this cohort of children between 12 and 18 completely, and in that it does not enable them to be used as CHIS in limited circumstances, provided the protections are there. I do not believe that Amendments 12, 13 and 14 lend themselves to the situation that already exists and which I would like to see continue, provided the protections are in place.

That brings me to Amendments 24 and 26. Here, I am entirely in the hands of my noble friend the Minister, who will need to convince me that her Amendment 26 is as good as Amendment 24 in providing protections in the situation which I have set out and which I would like to see put in place in these circumstances. Normally, I would be minded to support Amendment 26, but I will be unable to do so unless she is unable to convince me that the protections clearly set out in Amendment 24 will be in place.

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. We have already heard some truly excellent speeches and I am sure there are more to come. I support Amendment 24, which has been so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and am very happy to have added my name to it. I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I agree with virtually all the points that he made in proposing Amendment 12. I join him in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who always engages with the House on issues and seeks to find a way forward. It is important that we do that. However, what we have from the Minister at the moment in government Amendment 26 does not go far enough to address the concerns we have heard from around the House, although I accept that considerable efforts have been made to seek a way forward. I know that those efforts are still going on.

I certainly want to seek an improvement and get something detailed into the Bill that provides further protections for children; that is the most important thing for me. If we are to deploy CHIS then, in the very rare and exceptional circumstances where we need to do that, we must have those protections. That is why I support Amendment 24: I believe it sets out the way to get the right balance and, in those exceptional and rare circumstances, allows for that better oversight to be provided. In a way, I will vote for Amendment 24 to give the Government an opportunity to carry on discussions with people around the House and outside it. If we pass it, I hope that a better amendment will come back from the other place on ping-pong that builds on Amendments 24 and 26, and seeks to address the concerns that the Minister can surely hear from around the House, to get something in the Bill that is better than what we have now.

For that reason, I will not be supporting Amendment 12 by the noble Lord, Lord Young; I just do not believe that the Government are going to support that position, so it is a practical consideration that leaving a little room there for the exceptional circumstance, with the right protections, is the way to go. We need to build on the constructive discussions that we have had outside the House, and the debates we have had on this issue in the House, to find the way forward. I want to apply protections for children and vulnerable adults, and the process outlined in the amendment is the way to get them.

I bring my remarks to a conclusion by paying tribute to the many noble Lords around the House who have been engaged in this issue. I thought my noble friend Lord Haskel raised it on an SI some years ago, so I do not know who started it; maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, or the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Certainly a number of people have raised this issue and everyone has been vitally concerned to protect children, put safeguards in place and get us to a better place, so I thank everyone in the House who has been involved in this. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling her amendment and my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, who has been heavily involved.

I believe that this is one of those debates in the House where you can hear the concern on all Benches from numerous highly respected noble Lords. We as a House need to send Amendment 24 to the other place, which will enable us to get something back from the Government that I hope will satisfy all noble Lords and get us to a better place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have a specific question for the Minister. She mentioned the lifetime duty of care to the CHIS that whichever authority is managing them has after the deployment. In the case of children who have been deployed, if and when the person managing the child CHIS retires from the force or moves on to another role, what mechanism is there to replace the individual or individuals tasked with following up with the CHIS? Secondly, is there any sort of formal reporting mechanism that loops back how those ex-CHIS are doing, so that they can be monitored? Also, is that recorded in any way and can it be reported to Parliament?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very detailed response to this long and important debate. I want to push her a bit further. She said that the Government cannot support Amendment 24 in its present form but understand where we are coming from. I equally understand where the noble Baroness and the Government are coming from. However, if the House voted for Amendment 24 and it was sent to the other place, I am sure that she would want to engage constructively with its movers—and other colleagues in this House and elsewhere—so that we could bring back through the ping-pong process something that the whole House could unite behind, taking the best points of her government amendment and the points in Amendment 24 that were carried. It would be useful for the House to know whether that would be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will not move Amendment 26. Given the strength of the House on Amendment 24, I think it is probably best to go away and, as discussed earlier, have some more discussions on both the government amendment and Amendment 24.

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

I thank the noble Baroness and the Government very much for that. I am sure we can get an agreement and all come together. Thank you so much.

Amendment 26 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who is rather closer to my position than most of the other contributors to this debate.

I think we start, after these exhaustive Committee and Report stages, with a pretty wide recognition across the House of the value that can come from covert sources and the vital need to ensure that, in maintaining law and order and a safe country, we do not lose the opportunity of using covert sources. They may be the only way to get the results we want and to prevent very serious crime and damage to our country.

But I think the reason why perhaps we have the problem of these amendments—all of which I oppose—is that many people ask the Government for lots of examples of all the ways in which the various bodies that people wish to delete have actually had any success with covert sources. Of course, the difficulty the Government have, which I understand, is that it is very difficult in many cases. There may be ongoing issues, or they may endanger existing covert sources by giving too many examples of the ways in which we have managed to prevent crime and get the success that we want.

I certainly think that there is general agreement that, if we do have the operation of covert sources, it has been made very clear that we want to be satisfied that they are properly operated; that it is necessary and proportionate; that it is subject to effective scrutiny and inspection; and that there are clear limits on the number of authorities permitted and able to operate it.

When one looks at the list of the authorities, I was not impressed with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, talking about any Tom, Dick or Harry. These are major organisations in our country—public authorities with major responsibilities. I would just make this point: it is not just any list. We know that it would be wrong to have too many. The Minister may correct me, but I believe that there were 34 originally which, under the previous arrangements, could operate. This has now been reduced to 14, which seems to me the right approach to take.

Looking at some of the issues that there are, in my previous contributions I have drawn on the contribution of James Brokenshire, and I join in our best wishes to him. I will just repeat once the evidence he gave on the devastating amount of crime and serious events: in a year alone in London, covert sources helped ensure 3,500 arrests, the recovery of more than 500 weapons, the seizure of more than 400 kilograms of class A drugs and the recovery of more than £2.5 million in cash. The only thing that that does not actually say is which of these agencies in London were part of that. That is part of the problem the Government have had in getting across the message of why these agencies are important.

In the current situation, in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic, when I think we are about to have global challenges in the supply of vaccines and some new medicines thought to help with treatment, with the struggle there may be and the opportunities for organised crime to get into that area, for the Government to delete the Department of Health and Social Care and its medicines and healthcare products section from being involved in this area—they could be vital; they are needed in those situations—and say that they have decided on this occasion to deprive them of what may be a vital source of intelligence to protect the nation’s health would be unforgivable.

In passing, I note the decision to delete the Home Office from the list except in cases of slavery. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the letter in today’s Times from the Reverend Jonathan Aitken, the chaplain to Pentonville prison. He made the case that in prisons at the moment, where a number of staff are having to self-isolate and are under great pressure and there are opportunities for criminal gangs to get up to dangerous operations of one form or another, it is essential that we do not at this moment take away one of their sources of possibly vital intelligence.

I will not go on about it, because the other thing I see coming—just to cheer everybody up—in our present dramas is a real risk of world food shortages. If there is a challenge of that kind, with the opportunities for organised crime to get into the food area and cause huge problems for different people, that choice moment to delete the Food Standards Agency from being able to keep the fullest possible checks on what is happening seems very unwise. I certainly agree that there should not be a huge range of different agencies, but I do not support any of these amendments. All these agencies have good justification at the moment; it is vital we keep our defences up.

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

My Lords, I find myself agreeing with a lot of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater.

I absolutely recognise the concerns of Members about the range of organisations listed in the Bill. It is right that we probe, question and justify to ourselves as a House which organisations are listed here—as we have heard, that is now a reduced number—but it is also important that, as this Bill passes through the House, we empower a number of organisations to have the ability, in limited circumstances, to employ a covert human intelligence source.

If you look at the organisations here and think about the potential crimes that could be under their remit—HM Revenue & Customs in terms of tax fraud, the Food Standards Agency in terms of passing off out-of-date meat, the Environment Agency in terms of discharging all sorts of stuff into our rivers or the Competition and Markets Authority in terms of many activities which are illegal and very detrimental to our country—it is right that we have this range.

It is fair to say that some organisations listed here would potentially use the power much more than others. That is fair. I am clear that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has some oversight here, but it would be useful if the noble Baroness could be clear in responding that an organisation that used this power very infrequently would have the ability to go to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for advice and guidance, and maybe also to other agencies that are more used to using this power.

I absolutely see the point that we need to have organisations in certain areas empowered to do this work. These are potentially very dangerous situations. This is about keeping our country safe and protected in these difficult times. Although I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords in the amendments in this group, we on these Benches would not support any votes on them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I found the contribution from my noble friend Lord King very compelling. I hope that all noble Lords have received and read the business cases for the wider public authorities that I sent to all Peers last week. On the basis of those, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the requirement that these public authorities have for the use of this power. I can again offer reassurance that they will be low users of the power but that it nevertheless remains an important tactic in detecting and preventing crimes that have a significant impact on the lives of the public.

Regarding why the police cannot just authorise for these wider public authorities, the police have a range of priorities and we have given various organisations specific law enforcement responsibilities. That is why these public authorities have their own investigative functions, and they therefore need the tools to fulfil those functions.

If noble Lords support Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, as the Government will, IPCO will have close to real-time oversight of every single criminal conduct authorisation granted by each public authority. This will be another important safeguard to ensure that the power is being used properly and appropriately. IPCO will almost definitely flag where this is not the case, or if there are training requirements.

I can confirm that my noble friend Lord King is absolutely right: there were originally 34 authorities. There are now 14, so, far from expanding that list, we are contracting it. In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I can confirm that the IPC will consider the authorisation of wider public authorities in his annual report, which will be public.

I would like to give a very topical example of how this power might be used by one of our wider public authorities, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which comes under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Social Care in the Bill. The MHRA has responsibility for protecting public health through the regulation of medicinal products, medical devices and blood and blood products in the UK. These products are not ordinary consumer goods and have the ability to cure, prevent and diagnose disease and enhance life. However, they can also cause serious harm. In particular, prescription medicines are, by their very nature, potent and are prescribed to patients by a healthcare professional based on clinical judgment and a patient’s history.

In the UK, strict legal controls govern these products and breaches of these regulations are criminal. Crime involving medicines and medical devices is increasing; they are profitable commodities and unscrupulous individuals and organised crime gangs, which put financial gain before human health, face less risk and less severe penalties compared to trading in, for example, narcotic drugs. The MHRA relies on powers under RIPA, including the power to authorise the use and conduct of CHIS, to investigate and disrupt criminal activity in this area.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I join so many noble Lords in paying a warm tribute to James Brokenshire and sending our best wishes to him. It is very sad to hear the news. I hope for a good and speedy recovery and to hear better news shortly.

My approach to these amendments is already pretty clear because we are setting up a completely new system. It is now on a statutory basis and has a new and I think generally respected code of practice. It has to report through the judicial commissioner and then the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to the Prime Minister and Parliament, and to try at this stage to put in all sorts of qualifications seems quite unnecessary.

Take the issue about adding “serious” to “crime”: it seems that in many cases when the police first get some source—some possible informer—they may not be at all clear how serious the crime may be. However, I think we would all feel pretty silly if later on, when very serious crimes were reviewed, they said, “We knew about that, but because we couldn’t tell how serious it was going to be at that time, we never took any action.” That would be pretty unforgivable. Therefore, I do not support adding “serious” to these issues.

I will not say any more about how the issue of economic well-being is linked to national security, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, covered the point admirably. There is no question that many things could happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, addressed; he is a former member of the ISC, who took evidence with me. And the noble Lord, Lord West—poacher turned gamekeeper that he is—said that we now see a situation in which many extremely serious things could affect economic well-being. That could involve perhaps many people losing their jobs and significantly higher unemployment, but you could not claim that that is linked to national security.

With the confusions and uncertainties of the world at present, the cyberattacks and the data war that is going on, I would not wish to qualify, limit or restrict a properly set up and statutorily approved new system with too many qualifications, which may limit the effectiveness of its vital work.

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

My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill on Report. First, I join others in sending my best wishes to James Brokenshire. I do not know Mr Brokenshire very well, but I dealt with him when he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and he was always very fair. I wish him well in his treatment and send him my best wishes, as other noble Lords have done.

Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10 in this group are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I will comment on these first and then come to Amendment 11, proposed by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.

All issues in this group of amendments were discussed in Committee, on 3 December last year. Amendments 7 and 8 would insert the word “serious” after the words “detecting” and “preventing” in the Bill, thereby seeking to limit the use of a criminal conduct authorisation. I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making and, while I have some sympathy with him, I am not convinced that these amendments are necessary.

Of course all authorisations must be necessary and proportionate, but, on reading through the revised code of practice, I thought it contained enough protection to render these amendments unnecessary, as I said earlier. On looking through the code, I saw one very important paragraph, which I read carefully. It said:

“The authorisation … will not be proportionate if it is excessive in the overall circumstances of the case. Each action authorised should bring an expected benefit to the investigation or operation and should not be disproportionate or arbitrary. The fact that a suspected offence may be serious will not alone render the use or conduct of a CHIS proportionate. Similarly, an offence may be so minor that any deployment of a CHIS would be disproportionate. No activity should be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means.”


That is fairly clear.

If votes are called on either of these two amendments, these Benches will not support them. I take a similar view that Amendment 10 is not necessary for the same reason. It is important to enable public authorities to have a reasonable suite of tools available to prevent crime and seek justice for victims.

When we discussed these matters before, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, used the example of out-of-date food being sold and consumed. On one level, you could ask what the big issue with a few dates is, but the reality is that it could lead to serious public health implications, with people consuming food that is not fit to be consumed by humans, leading to serious illness and even death, in certain circumstances. I can see circumstances in which, information having been assessed carefully using the guidance of the code, a CHIS would quite rightly be deployed. This is all about balance and proportionality, and I think we are probably in the right place.

Amendment 9 seeks to restrict issues around economic well-being to those linked to national security. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that he intends to test the opinion of the House if he is not satisfied with the Government’s response. I again tell the noble Lord that these Benches will not support him if he does. I have reservations about this amendment, which could unintentionally prevent a CHIS being deployed on some crimes where their deployment would otherwise be reasonable, proportionate and necessary. That could be to the detriment of our economic well-being as a country, if other tests have been met. This issue was discussed at length in Committee.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, that such disorder—riot—is in itself a serious crime as defined in our Amendment 31. It is important, however, to set out clearly that the type of disorder should be limited to serious disorder on the face of the Bill. We believe that such amendments would also address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

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

My Lords, Amendment 22, moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti with the support of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Hendy, seeks to limit the use of criminal conduct authorisations to serious crime—and by that they mean indictable offences that must be tried in Crown Court before a judge and jury.

The amendment seeks to remove subsection (5)(c) in respect of economic well-being in the United Kingdom. It would be helpful if, in her response, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, were to set out examples of what this provision is seeking to do and what it is not seeking to do. There are concerns about this, as I am sure the noble Baroness has heard, from around the House, during discussion of this group.

Can the Minister also explain why the list of necessary grounds given in this Bill—as listed in subsection (5)(5)—is slightly different from those listed in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act? In that Act, the reasons listed are that the activity threatens national security, threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in a way relevant to the interests of national security, or is an act of serious crime. Why not use the same words? Not to do so is surely a recipe for confusion when you are dealing with such serious matters. We want to see clarity from the Government; clarity about what they intend to bring into law is very important. Why is a form of words that was acceptable to the Government two years ago, when they put the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act on the statute book, changed in this Bill? Surely there is a risk of some overlap between these two pieces of legislation. Will the noble Baroness clarify this when she responds to the debate?

Amendments 23 and 26, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, add the word “serious” in order to limit a criminal conduct authorisation to issues of serious crime. I have listened carefully to the arguments from the noble Lord and have some sympathy with them, so I will be interested to hear from the Minister the case for why these amendments are not necessary. The noble Lord referred to the number of times we have talked about serious crime over the years, and the various definitions of “serious”. That is a fair point and it needs to be answered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the question as to why preventing and detecting crime would not be enough, on their own, as reasons for the powers in the Bill to be deployed. We also need reassurance about what will not happen when powers are given by Parliament, so it is important for the Minister to set out what will not be impacted.

Noble Lords may not like it, but the right to withhold one’s labour and to strike is a hard-won right that we should all defend. We need guarantees that the powers in the Bill would never be used to undermine lawful, legal trade union activity in respect of strike action or campaigning activity. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti raised the important point regarding trade unions, as did my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick and many others. We have to get the balance right; lawful activity must not be undermined by the state with the use of undercover activities.

We have heard about the policing inquiry. Some terrible things have happened that I am sure we all regret, which have undermined legitimate activity. It must never happen again. Those are the questions the noble Baroness needs to reassure the House on: how will this Bill ensure that never ever happens again?

I am a proud trade unionist. I was a member of USDAW for 12 years when I first left school and I have been a member of the GMB for the last 30 years. I never rose very high in the GMB ranks; I got as fair as the chair of the Labour Party senior staff sub-branch for a couple of years. I spent probably more time arguing with the rest of the staff in the Labour Party about where we wanted to get to. But I certainly think that the unions are very important. For example, USDAW—a union I am very close to—is a great trade union with great campaigns that I always support. It is important that we support the work that unions such as USDAW do.

At this point, I pay tribute to my old friend John Spellar. John was first elected to public office 50 years ago today, in a St Mary Cray by-election on 3 December 1970. John has served as a councillor, trade unionist, trade union official, MP and Minister. John would have nothing to do with any extremism of any sense whatever; anyone who knows him would know that. He has also run a news service for many in the Labour Party called “Spellar News”. We get it two or three times a day: early bird, evening round-up and news flashes. John is actually retiring the news service today, which I am very sad about. He has done great work as a trade unionist and is a great example to many of us in the Labour Party.

I was also sorry to learn that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has been arrested on demonstrations. I have been on a few demonstrations in my time as well. I have avoided being arrested, but I must admit that I have also been demonstrated against. When I was a councillor, many times things that we did on the council provoked some annoyance. I remember once that I put up the fees of the traders in East Street Market and drew their wrath for a number of weeks. There were lots of unpleasant signs about me.

What is important here is that, if you are a trade unionist or a campaigner, nothing in the Bill must ever undermine legitimate work. It is really important for the Government, and for the noble Baroness, to reassure the House and Parliament that nothing legitimate will ever be undermined when this goes on the statute book, and that actually it will be supported. I think she can see from the comments of people around the House today that we are not convinced that is the case. She needs to reassure us now in responding to the debate.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to anyone who has been in politics—and indeed the trade union movement—for 50 years. I have heard of John Spellar in dispatches, but unfortunately not the person that the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, referenced.

Turning to public authorities, they have different functions, the ultimate outcome of which is to keep the public safe from harm in a variety of ways. It is very important that they can lawfully deploy CHIS to fulfil those responsibilities. These amendments seek to restrict the statutory purposes available to public authorities under the Bill.

The structure of new Section 29B closely resembles that of Section 29, which authorises the use and conduct of CHIS, as there is a high degree of interrelationship between the two provisions. That is why a Section 29 authorisation is required to be in place before a Section 29B authorisation can be granted. The statutory purposes that will be available for a criminal conduct authorisation are linked to those available for a use and conduct authorisation. It is not operationally workable to have different grounds for authorisation between the provisions. For example, we would want to avoid a situation where a CHIS’s use and conduct has been deemed necessary for the prevention of crime, but the linked criminal conduct authorisation for the same CHIS and the same activity may be only on the basis of preventing a serious crime, as my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater pointed out.

My noble friend also pointed out the words of my right honourable friend James Brokenshire about the sheer amount of activity that has been done under covert means—it led to 3,500 arrests and the recovery of more than 400 firearms, 100 other types of weapons, 400 kilograms of class A drugs and £2.5 million-worth of cash. But first and foremost, and most importantly, is the fact that it safeguarded hundreds of victims from child sexual abuse and other heinous crimes.

To restrict the prevention of “crime” to “serious crime”, as Amendments 22, 23 and 31 propose, would mean that public authorities would be less able to investigate crime that, while not amounting at the time to serious crime, actually has a damaging impact on the lives of its victims—so the outcome is serious, to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. An example of this would be food crime: the extension of meat durability dates, leading to out-of-date food being consumed, is damaging and can be very dangerous to public health.

Of course, the necessity and proportionality requirements mean that an authorisation must be proportionate to the activity it seeks to prevent. This provides an important safeguard against authorisations of serious criminality being granted to prevent less serious, but equally important, crime. However, it is surely right that public authorities have access to the most effective tools to ensure justice for victims of these crimes and to prevent their occurrence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to some of the examples that we have heard in this Chamber of sexual relationships between undercover police and women, and some of the actually quite devastating consequences of that. I think I have said before in this Chamber that that was not lawful, is not lawful and would never be lawful.

In response to the1 amendments seeking to remove economic well-being, this is one of the established statutory purposes for which covert investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. It recognises that threats to the economic well-being of the UK could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. It might, for example, include the possibility of a hostile cyberattack against our critical national infrastructure, our financial institutions or, indeed, the Government. It is important that law enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies can deploy the full CHIS functionality against such threats where it is necessary and proportionate.

Similarly, preventing disorder is an important and legitimate law enforcement function. Where illegal activity takes place, public authorities listed in the Bill have a responsibility to take action as is necessary and proportionate. An example of this could be managing hostile football crowds, which does not involve lawful protest but causes harm to the public.

To be clear to noble Lords concerned that either economic well-being or preventing disorder could be used to target legitimate protest or the work of the trade unions, an authorisation can be granted only if it is proportionate to the harm or criminality that it seeks to prevent. Therefore, this would not include—to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—“legitimate and lawful activity”. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bryan of Partick, also gave examples of activity by political groups or trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me about the difference between the wording in this Bill and the CT Act. It goes wider, basically, and it is consistent with RIPA.

With those words, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 27 is tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am not going to speak for long because we discussed some of these issues in the previous group. We have mentioned numbers in the various pieces of legislation and I have made the point about consistency. I know that when I mentioned the counter-terrorism Act, the noble Baroness was spot on and I will look at what she said in the earlier debate. However, we need to be sure that we have consistency in the various bits of legislation that we are talking about today. That is very important.

A number of colleagues have talked about the need to get the balance right here. The concerns that have been raised by Members of the House show that it is one thing when you are dealing with terrorists from another state or people who for various reasons are looking to undermine the economic well-being of the country, but on the other side of that are quite lawful campaigners. We might not like them and we might think that what they are doing is wrong or irritating, but they are acting in a perfectly lawful way. That is the area in which we need reassurance and it is what this debate comes down to. People have the right to protest, to be annoying and irritating, as long as they do it lawfully. We have to be sure that we get this right and that is what we are worried about.

Equally, I turn to the whole question of trade unionists, who have been mentioned many times. Trade unionists have the right to campaign and to know that they can do so without having agents put in to undermine their activities. You could argue that others might undermine their activities, but they do not need people in their own ranks who are sent in to do that.

As many noble Lords have mentioned, in the past undercover officers have been sleeping with campaigners. That is totally out of order. I am sure that it will be said that that will never happen again, but people need to be reassured that it is, as I say, totally out of order. While the Government are saying that this will never happen again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has challenged a number of police commissioners—three of them are now Members of this House—and has never had an answer; that is also a concern. These things are totally wrong.

The Minister has a job here to find a way of reassuring the Committee that these things will not happen again, but how can we be sure about that? That is the issue that we have to deal with, because of course we thought that they could not have happened before, but clearly they did and we have only found out about them years afterwards. We want legislation that is right and proper so that people are protected, but, equally, legitimate campaigners have to be protected as well so that they are not abused and wrong things done to them. This, I think, is the crux of the issues we are debating today and I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will start with the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Chakrabarti, and the point about listening to what each other is saying. I have never tried to skirt around the issue of the disgusting behaviour of some 30 years ago. I do not know whether police officers were not told that it was illegal and the inquiry is clearly establishing the ins and outs of that. But it was not acceptable and it was never lawful, and it cannot be authorised under this Bill. I hope that I have made that very clear. I do not dismiss what those women went through—including, indeed, what the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, went through—and I hope that the inquiry will vindicate an awful lot of the people who suffered, complained and were simply ignored in the past. The inquiry will get to the bottom of something that was never lawful in the first place. I digress, but I must add that operational partners are very clear that that sort of behaviour could not be authorised under this Bill.

I shall move on to the substance of Amendment 27. I will not repeat the points I made in response to the last set of amendments, but I will emphasise that economic well-being is one of the established statutory purposes for which covert human investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. We recognise that threats to the economic well-being of the UK could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. That might include, for example, the possibility of a hostile cyberattack against our critical infrastructure, as I said earlier, attacks on financial institutions or on the Government themselves. I gave examples in my previous speech of the victims of CSA, cash and drugs activity, so they may not be solely related to issues of national security.

We have agencies such as HMRC, the NCA and the Serious Fraud Office whose mandate includes mitigating broader threats to the UK’s economic well-being. These threats are real, emerging and go beyond the remit of national security. We cannot tie our hands in response to such threats by limiting the statutory purposes available to tackle these issues. Of course, there are also examples of where economic well-being is not restricted to national security, as set out in other parts of the Investigatory Powers Act and the Security Service Act.

I hope that I have given a full explanation of why Amendment 27 should be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

28: Clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“(5A) The circumstances in which a criminal conduct authorisation is necessary on grounds specified in subsection (5)(c) may not include the activities of trade unions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that circumstances in which a criminal conduct authorisation is deemed necessary for the economic well-being of the UK may not include the activities of trade unions.

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

My Lords, Amendment 28 in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Clark of Kilwinning, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to amend the Bill by adding to it an exclusion that, where a criminal conduct authorisation is sought and deemed necessary, the grounds on which it is sought cannot include the activities of trade unions. We have mentioned trade unions in a number of our earlier debates. This is a very important issue and one that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will make a very positive response to at the end of the debate. I should add at the start of my remarks that I fully support Amendment 29, in the name of my noble friend Lady Clark, which is an amendment to my amendment to add the words “or legitimate political activity”.

Noble Lords will know that trade unions have been legal in the United Kingdom since about 1824. As a result of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions of 1867, it was agreed that unions were advantageous both to employers and employees. That led to the passing of the Trade Union Act 1871. Trade unions have been a force for good in the United Kingdom and around the world. They have led campaigns to improve the conditions, and the health and safety, of workers and communities alike. They are experts in the world of work. Through constructive engagement with employers in the public and private sectors, they have sought to deliver improvements of which we are all beneficiaries today. They should not be subjected to any activity resulting from the powers given under the Bill, which is why this amendment is so important.

Trade unions have brought about improvements such as sick pay, maternity pay, the eight-hour day for most workers, paternity leave, paid holidays, the minimum wage, protection against discrimination, equal pay and safe and healthy workplaces, but there is always more to do. Trade unions today are campaigning on zero-hours contracts and their associated poor working conditions, and on low wages. They also play a huge role in the campaigns on climate change, domestic abuse and the gig economy—where basic rights are often in short supply. They have highlighted the shambles of the universal credit roll-out, for example, and the great shame that, in the fifth-richest country in the world, there are people relying on food banks and sleeping in the streets close to this noble House.

All that work is legitimate and legal, and it should never be at risk from the powers contained in the Bill. I am seeking an unequivocal assurance from the Minister that trade unions will never be targeted. If she will not accept this amendment, how can she provide that assurance to the House? I fully support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Clark, as I said earlier, which would further ensure that legitimate political activity cannot be targeted under the powers contained in the Bill.

Amendment 35, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prevent the powers in this Bill being used to compile lists of trade union members or to discriminate against them when they seek employment. We have heard disturbing stories of how, in the past, police officers were involved—and that is terrible—and organisations were doing just that. It is vital to have an unequivocal assurance that never again will we see officials of the state involved in targeting individuals, using the powers contained in the Bill. These are serious matters. Even the Metropolitan Police’s official spokesman said that the force’s internal report into blacklisting had established that the conduct of certain officers amounted to the improper sharing of information, as the law stands. Even their own spokesperson accepted that these things were wrong.

That was all part of a scandal which was exposed 10 years ago. It involved an organisation called the Consulting Association and information being quite improperly supplied to companies. That effectively ended the individual’s chances of getting a job, which was appalling and disgraceful. We are all aware of the settlements offered by companies such as Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Kier, Laing O’Rourke, Robert McAlpine, Skanska and VINCI. I am sure that the Undercover Policing Inquiry will look at this further, but I am also concerned that these activities should worry us all.

If these powers are put on to the statute book, what are the protections and guarantees against these activities happening again? I know the Minister will say it will never happen again but, sadly, sometimes these things do. Can she say in her answer what will be done if it happens again? We all know about the questionable activities of Mark Jenner, also known as Mark Cassidy. He allegedly passed on information about 300 workers; his name comes up many times in connection with other activities. We need to know that this cannot happen again and, if it does, what the Government would then do. I look forward to this debate and I beg to move.

Amendment 29 (to Amendment 28)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 29 (to Amendment 28) withdrawn.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, in which we have discussed some important issues. Needed here are guarantees that trade unions—as corporate bodies or their individual members—political parties, campaigning organisations and individual political campaigners undertaking legitimate and lawful activity, which you may not like, will not have agents of the state working to undermine their work. That is the key thing here. We will have to pursue this matter again on Report. This has clearly happened in the past and the Minister has admitted that it could happen in the future. If we cannot guarantee that it will not happen again, what are we going to do about it? That is what we need to know; that is the point that we need to sort out.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, highlighted the wide range of authorities that have powers and the subjective nature of individual criminal activity authorisations. That is also an issue. I am starting to wonder whether some previous authorisations were malicious or, in some cases, just stupid. Either way, you worry about, “Well, why would people do that?” It may be malicious or just stupid. How could one issue an authorisation for some little organisation that poses a threat to nobody? It is a waste of public money if nothing else; it is just ridiculous. These are the things that we need to know about.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is a highly respected Member of the House. I like her very much, as I know do many other Members around the House. We do not agree on everything, but we agree on lots of stuff. She brings important points to the House which we all need to consider and respond to. For that, she is highly valued.

In response to my question and that of my noble friend Lady Clark, we need to hear from the Minister that further reassurance about what we are going to do if this happens again.

I want to make one final point—it is a little bit off-piste. We have talked about economic harm, but I would suggest that Brexit is the most ridiculous act of economic harm that has ever been bestowed on this country. That is an issue for another day, but there is nothing madder than that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too signed the amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has very adequately introduced. When I think back to my experience in the Metropolitan Police Service and the instructions that we had, acting as an agent provocateur was clearly and explicitly prohibited as that relates to covert human intelligence sources committing crime. However, unless I have missed it, I cannot find in the Bill or in the draft code of practice any explicit reference to “agent provocateur”.

To repeat what the noble Baroness said in different terms, an agent provocateur is someone who commits a crime or encourages others to commit a crime that would not have been committed had it not been for the actions of the CHIS, or it relates to a situation in which the CHIS commits a crime and then blames the organisation for that crime, which members of the organisation had no intention of committing. In other words, the crime would never have taken place had it not been for the presence of the CHIS.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister where I have missed that explicit instruction, either in the Bill or in the codes of practice. I stress to her that, although I understand that this scenario could not happen under existing guidelines in the police service, we in this House want reassurance either in the Bill or in the codes of practice that it is prohibited.

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

My Lords, my contribution on this amendment will be fairly short. I hear the point that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti makes and I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this issue is not mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, I am not quite clear whether the amendment is necessary. It would help us if, when the Minister responds, she could say something about the detail of the authorisations in a CCA.

Behind all the amendments today are concerns and worries about what may or may not have happened in the past. People want reassurance going forward, but they are not seeing it. I see that theme across all our discussions today. At some point, the Government will probably have to go a bit further to provide that reassurance, although I do not know how they will do that.

All these issues have been raised because of concerns that people have had in the past. As my noble friend said, we do not know whether we can stop this in the future, but I hope that the Minister can go a bit further. I cannot see any particular issue but, if I am right, the reason behind an authorisation would have to be recorded and shared with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That is the issue on which we need reassurance, as we move forward and give people new powers.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank noble Lords. I hope to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about why we do not need this amendment.

I have already stressed the requirement for all CHIS authorisations to be given in line with the Human Rights Act. Article 6 of the ECHR protects the right to a fair trial. The article restates a fundamental principle of English law and, I understand, Scottish law: that a court has a duty to ensure a fair trial. The use of an agent provocateur could be seen as affecting the fairness of a trial, and rightly so. A court already has the requisite power in law—under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—to consider and exclude such evidence. The relevant entrapment principles are set out in the leading House of Lords case of Loosely from 2001, which also opines on the convergence of English law in this area with our Article 6 commitments. I hope that that provides reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

Identified and evaluated by whom? It means by the police—and, with the best will in the world, the police are going to be primarily focused on tackling criminality and dismantling the criminal gang, rather than on the best interests of the child. As my noble friend Lady Doocey said, the focus is not going to be on the welfare of the child. In a recent article in Independent Voices by a former undercover police officer, he described how they would go out to exploit vulnerable people, to get them to do this sort of thing. In short, children should not be seen as a disposable asset to be used in this way.

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

My Lords, this is one of those debates where you can stand up and quite honestly say you agree with every single word that has been said from across the House. I am sure the noble Baroness understands that this presents particular problem for the Government, because I am sure that, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who made an excellent speech, many other members of the Government’s own party will agree with all the points that have been raised here today.

This group of amendments brings the House back to an issue that was first raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel on a statutory instrument, to which the noble Baroness responded. I remember sitting in a much more packed House, and there was lots of concern around the House—“What is this?” People were quite shocked to learn that children were being used in such a way, and that shock and concern has continued, which is why we have come here today.

Everyone around the House is very worried. That is certainly why I signed Amendment 60, which was so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. Other noble Lords have spoken, and all these amendments are excellent, but I hope that we can hone this down to one. I particularly like Amendment 60, but I think we can see the concern expressed by the House, and we need to deal with this. Our Amendment 60 does not rule out child CHIS completely, but it certainly restricts them. I accept that in very limited circumstances, you might have to use a child, but it must be a very limited, rare occasion.

I am confident that the House will pass an amendment on this issue. Ideally and hopefully, it would be a government amendment, but I am confident that the House will pass an amendment by a large majority on this issue, which is about children. As you have heard, people under 18 can be quite streetwise—certainly, children think they are quite streetwise, although I do not know if they are; they are not quite as streetwise as they think they are. It is about that ability to give informed consent.

We are asking these children to take part in, be involved in and inform and report back on some very dangerous situations. This can be terrorism, drug dealing, sexual abuse or paedophilia: all sorts of really appalling, terrible things. We have to ask ourselves the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: how is that individual child protected? What would be said if a child CHIS is authorised and that child dies? That would be appalling—what would we say then? I think we have to take note of and be concerned about that, as well as the comments of the Children’s Commissioner in respect of using child CHIS.

Of course, sometimes—we have had this before—the child CHIS can be asked to pass information back to their handler, who can be a member of their own family. There are often situations when they are involved in a crime family: it could be their own father or mother. It is not always the case that the child is in care and hanging around the streets before getting involved; sometimes, it can be members of their own family, who can be very dangerous people. We are putting people in very difficult situations, and we must be even more careful about the individual child in those situations. These children have rights, and we need to ensure that, as the state, we protect them even more. As I said, if you are under 18, you are legally still a child and deserve protection from the state.

The right reverend Prelate made the point again about children, and I fully support his comments, as I do the points about mental capacity made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which are very important. I also support the point of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that, sometimes, you can have quite a streetwise child and, equally, an older adult who is not that streetwise, so there is an issue there as well. These are things that we need to consider.

I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell the House that she fully understands the situation—and I know she is concerned about this. I hope that she will work with the House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, says, can see the concern and genuine desire to agree something. I hope that she will welcome noble Lords from around the House and that we will come back with an amendment that, hopefully, we can all sign up to on Report, allowing very limited circumstances where a child may need to be used—very limited. Equally, I want to see much more protection for people. I hope that, when the noble Baroness responds, she will be able to give the House that information.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and absolutely confirm that I fully understand what all noble Lords have been talking about this evening. Of course, I will continue to work with the House, as I have done to date, in discussing what is, for me, the most difficult part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me: would I like to be a CHIS? No: I would be utterly terrified. Could I see my children being deployed in such activity? It would be incredibly difficult for me.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of those children, who, as every noble Lord has said, are fairly vulnerable people in the sense that they might have been involved in, or their home life might be the site of, criminal activity. This is a very difficult area indeed. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—and any noble Lords who are behind me—who have taken the time to come and speak to me about this aspect of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, put to me the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about sessions in private. We are thinking about the best way to ensure that people have some of the information they need, although noble Lords will understand that some of that is sensitive to the point that it cannot be given out. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I have taken the time to have a one-to-one session with any noble Lord who requested it, on any aspect of the Bill. That said, these issues are very difficult, and I totally understand the concerns that have been raised. Nobody likes to think of children or young people being involved in these horrible areas.

Noble Lords may recall that the issue of juvenile CHIS, including whether they should be authorised at all, was discussed extensively in Parliament in 2018. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me why there was no child impact assessment of the Bill. As a result of concerns being raised about the use of juvenile CHIS, the IPC himself launched a review of all public authorities that have the power to authorise CHIS, to ensure that there was a comprehensive record of how often these powers were used in relation to juveniles. The conclusions of the review were reported in March 2019 to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I have discussed them before, including the numbers, on the Floor of this House.

On the basis of these detailed reviews, the IPC was satisfied that those who grant such authorisations do so only after very careful consideration of the inherent risks, and that concerns around the safeguarding of children and the public authority’s duty of care to the child are key considerations in the authorisation process. He also noted that public authorities are reticent to authorise juveniles as CHIS unless the criminality and the risk of harm to individuals and communities that the authorisation is seeking to prevent is of a high order and cannot be resolved in less intrusive ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, put that challenge to me.

The IPC also highlighted that juvenile CHIS are not tasked to participate in criminality that they are not already involved in and that becoming a CHIS can, potentially, offer a way to extricate themselves from such harm. The decisions to authorise were only made where this is the best option for breaking the cycle of crime and the danger for the individual, much as that might sound contradictory.

As well as the IPC investigation, the High Court considered the issue of juvenile CHIS last year. Mr Justice Supperstone set out his view that it was clear that the principal focus of the framework for juvenile CHIS is to ensure that appropriate weight is given to a child’s best interests and that the practical effect of the enhanced risk assessment is that juveniles are,

“only utilised in extreme circumstances and when other potential sources of information have been exhausted.”

I hope that that goes some way to reassuring noble Lords that the decision to authorise a young person to act as a CHIS, or participate in criminality, is never taken lightly.

I will now set out the additional safeguards that apply to the authorisation of juveniles as CHIS, and which will equally apply when criminal conduct is being authorised. These include authorisation at a more senior level, a shorter duration for authorisations—four months, rather than 12 for adult CHIS—with monthly reviews, and a requirement for an enhanced risk assessment. There must also be an appropriate adult present at meetings between the public authority and the CHIS for those under 16 years of age. To answer another question, appropriate adults are always independent of the police or other investigating authorities. This must be considered on a case-by-case basis for 16 to 17 year-olds.

These safeguards are contained within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order and the updated CHIS code of practice, where the safeguards for juveniles have been further strengthened. The revisions to the code will be subject to a full consultation before they are finalised and will have legal force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will reiterate what I said, which is that I am trying to work out a mechanism for sessions that might be helpful but not leaked, and perhaps where we can give some working examples—again, perhaps in private. We will try to do that if not before Report then during it, but before we come to this amendment.

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

Actually, I have nothing to ask. The noble Baroness answered my point right at the end, after I had asked the clerk if I could speak, so I will leave it there.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate—not least the Minister, who has been on her feet answering debates for over six and a half hours and has done so with patience and courtesy. It is probably in breach of her human rights to be on duty for such a long time.

I am also grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, the vast majority of whom have been in favour of Amendment 43—namely, there are no circumstances in which children should be used as CHIS. That is reflected in most of the amendments, with one or two, as it were, blurring the red line a little by specifying certain circumstances in which that might be possible.

Perhaps I may briefly pick up some of the points that were made during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a good point about those over 18 who look younger than they are and whether, if it is inevitable that people who look young will be used, it should be them rather than people who actually are under 18. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a good point about the rather narrow distinction between, on the one hand, grooming, which we are all against, and, on the other, persuading vulnerable children to act as covert human intelligence, which we are less enthusiastic about.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle asked us to think about the consequences for the child, and he wanted better safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, quite rightly, wanted the ban extended to victims of slavery and trafficking and those who are unable to give informed consent. She delved into the psychology of teenagers to query whether this worked and whether somebody of that age could make rational decisions. My noble friend Lady McIntosh wondered how the use of children could be compatible with the UNHCR. Then the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, joined others in pressing for a meeting with the Minister between now and Report, which she has readily agreed to.

We then came to what I thought was the most valuable contribution—from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He was the floating voter in this debate. He said that he had been swung by the argument and was now in favour of Amendment 43. As a former Chief Whip, I was always rather worried when colleagues went into the Chamber to listen to the debate just in case they could be swayed the wrong way, but on this occasion I am delighted that we have had an impact on the floating voter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that vulnerable children need support, particularly if they are already victims. She made the valid point that we do not send children into battle, so should we send them into circumstances that might be equally dangerous? The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young of Hornsey, touched on the risk of blackmail: “Either work with us as covert human intelligence or you will be arrested”. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned evidence from police officers that this was the case.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is not just Greenies who are in favour of this. I was a member of Friends of the Earth for a very long time— until, as Secretary of State for Transport, I built the Newbury bypass, when, I am sad to say, it expelled me. She also made the valid point that if the police are traumatised when they act in these circumstances, what will be the position of children under 18?

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a point that was picked up by others: would we allow our children —or, in the case of many Peers, our grandchildren—to be used as human spies? Of course, under the terms of the draft code, parents would not necessarily know that this was happening; they do not have to be told.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, summarised the concern in both Houses and said we need the evidence. I hope we get the evidence and I hope it is all of it: not just the evidence that may substantiate the case that the Minister wishes to persuade us of, but evidence of where things have not perhaps gone quite as they should. The noble Lord asked whether the process used for the Investigatory Powers Act might be used in this case. I am not familiar with it but that sounds like a very helpful suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

I will speak briefly in full-blooded support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and an amendment that seems to me like a no-brainer. The worst abuses of undercover policing, as are emerging in the inquiry, have related to people who have been embedded for a long time without adequate review, and obviously the risk of abuse is greater the longer a person builds their legend and is embedded without proper review.

Given that all time limits are arbitrary, it is right that we look for something relatively short, given the gravity of the line that is being crossed with this legislation for criminal conduct. The noble Lord has come to a very decent compromise with the monthly review and the four-month maximum on licensing people to commit crime.

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

My Lords, I will be brief. I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making on the need for review, but I am not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill. I am not persuaded that it is the right thing to do, although I see the point of a review. When the noble Baroness responds, maybe she can tell us about the detail of future authorisations. Would it be built into the authorisation itself? That would seem the better place for it, but I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness says. As it is, I am not convinced by the amendment or that the issue should be in the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to provide the clarity that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks and persuade the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not necessary in the Bill. The current authorisation period of 12 months is consistent with the authorisation for the use and conduct of CHIS, which will need to be in place before criminal conduct can be authorised. Keeping the Bill consistent with the powers laid out in Section 29 will ensure that this power remains operationally workable for the public authorities listed in the Bill.

In the updated CHIS code of practice that accompanies the Bill, it is clear that a criminal conduct authorisation should be relied upon for as short a duration as possible. There is also a requirement on authorising officers to undertake regular reviews to assess whether the authorisation remains necessary and proportionate, and is justified. An authorisation must be cancelled when that is no longer the case.

Authorisations will be specifically and narrowly drafted and, in many cases, the specificity of the authorisation will mean that the criminal conduct authorised is in effect narrowly time-limited. However, there will be occasions when this conduct necessarily extends longer than a four-month period; CHIS who are members of proscribed organisations is a good example of this.