English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the powerful speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and my noble friend Lord Grabiner. I just want to emphasise two points on Amendment 248, to which I have added my name. The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, then the purchaser takes free from the trust—that is Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law. The only question to which this amendment is directed is what should happen if there has been a failure by the local authority properly to advertise the trust.

The second point I want to emphasise is that, if the local authority fails properly to advertise the sale, any interested person is perfectly entitled to bring a judicial review to challenge the sale within a short time period—normally three months but reduced to six weeks in the planning context. The vice of the present law, as stated by the Supreme Court, is that the purchaser in good faith remains bound by the trust, even though it is not responsible for the failure of the local authority to advertise and even though no legal challenge has been brought within the applicable time limits. The whole purpose of time limits in public law is to ensure that, after the expiry of the time limits, people can go about their business and can develop land in their interests and of course in the public interest. That is the context.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, if I heard him correctly, said that in the interests of politeness he would not comment on the amendments to his Amendment 248. I am less polite than my friend the noble Lord, Lord Banner—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

We know that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for confirming that she knows that already. I will comment, I hope politely, on Amendment 248D in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson spoke. They wish to insert a precondition to the application of these new provisions for statutory trust discharge orders. The precondition is that the Secretary of State must first undertake a review of the availability of open spaces in this country, publish a report, lay the report before both Houses of Parliament—no doubt there would then be a debate—and then have regard to the outcome of the review.

This will cause very substantial delay in the application of the new statutory trust discharge orders, and it will cause substantial delay—years of delay—despite us all agreeing, I think, that these new orders are needed urgently. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressly accepted that these new provisions are urgently needed. If he accepts that they are urgently needed, it makes no sense at all to delay their application for many years.

In any event, I suggest to noble Lords that to await such a review would be especially inappropriate because the review would be general. Amendment 248D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom. By contrast, proposed new Section 128D(10), from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, specifies that the qualifying condition F is whether,

“it is in the public interest for the relevant land”—

I emphasise “relevant land”—

“to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”.

I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that it makes no sense for a general review to hold up decisions on specific land which raise entirely distinct issues.

Indeed, that amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is also unnecessary. If there are concerns about the availability of open spaces in the locality of the relevant land, the Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to take that into account in deciding, under proposed new Section 218D(10) and (11), whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts.

Like my noble friend Lord Grabiner, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has withdrawn, by my counting—it is perhaps an approximation—39 of the amendments he proposed to Amendment 248. The noble Lord suggests that this is all being rushed, and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, addressed that point. I add that we have been over this ground since last September; there is nothing new about this. Many of us spoke on amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill earlier this Session, in support of or in opposition to an earlier amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which had a similar objective. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said on 15 September last year—and again today—referring to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner:

“The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1985.]


We have all known that since last September. The Minister said that,

“this issue needs to be given wider consideration to identify a balanced solution that takes into account legal safeguards and addresses the practical challenges faced by developers”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; cols. 1985-86.]

That has taken place. Here we are today and it is high time that we resolve this issue.

Amendment 248 sets out a fair, transparent and practical means of addressing the problem; it requires an application by the landowner, detailed advertising and consideration by the Secretary of State, who has broad discretion in whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trust. That is the appropriate way forward and that is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, before I speak to my amendments in this group, I would like to say that I learned to read a long time ago—more than 70 years ago, before I went to school. This alphabet soup of a Bill is quite confusing, partly because so many people disagree with it. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, should perhaps be aware that it is moderately unusual to have this many amendments; perhaps it would help if he accepted one or two. Obviously, all of my amendments are incredibly reasonable, so I urge him to pick them up. My first amendment in this group would solve the problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, so I expect his strong support on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, moved Amendment 369 on the right to protest. In Committee, we were all reassured that this was not necessary, because the right to peaceful protest is already protected under the Human Rights Act. We were correctly reminded that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect the freedoms of expression and assembly, and that public authorities are already bound by those duties, but that reassurance is based on the assumption that those protections will remain intact. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, we cannot be sure of that; we cannot speak for future Governments, who might cause our right to protest to deteriorate.

Over recent years, under this Government and the previous one, we have seen a steady erosion of our right to protest and an expansion of police powers to restrict those protests. Each time, we are told, “The powers are modest—you will hardly notice them”. Of course, that is not true, because the effect is cumulative, damaging and leads to much greater constraint on people who are campaigning and protesting. The balance is shifting and Parliament continues to widen state power without at the same time reaffirming the underlying right.

I have also cosigned Amendment 369A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. There are many legitimate reasons why people might want to cover their faces at protests. Some noble Lords on this side of the Chamber might benefit from wearing masks sometimes, just to hide their look of derision at other noble Lords who are speaking coherently, cogently and sensibly. People might fear losing their job if their political views were known. They might fear backlash from family or their local community. They might be worried about racial profiling, particularly given the increased use of facial recognition technology. They might be protesting against a foreign regime and be genuinely concerned about repercussions for loved ones overseas. It is not unreasonable to wear masks.

I turn now to my Amendment 372ZA. Clause 139 is very problematic. It gives the police significant new powers to restrict protests near places of worship. I am an atheist, but I absolutely protect the right of people to worship freely, as they want to, and without fear. At a time of rising antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, that duty is paramount for us here in Parliament. All our diverse communities must be supported and defended, and every faith group must have the ability to worship freely. As drafted, Clause 139 risks undermining that balance between rights. If the Government are not prepared to remove it, it must at the very least be clarified and narrowed. My amendments are offered as a compromise and an attempt to introduce clarity where the drafting is currently vague and overly broad.

My amendments, which address the phrases “in the vicinity”, “within 50 metres” and “the purpose of intimidating”, seek to establish clarity on these broad definitions in Clause 139. The clause seeks to restrict the right to protest by giving the police new powers to ban or restrict protest “in the vicinity” of places of religious worship, based on the false premise that these powers are required to protect freedom of religion. “In the vicinity” is a vague definition that could mean 10 metres or 10 miles. At the very least, the clause must be amended to make it more specific and contained, with an eye towards protecting Article 11—the right to freedom of assembly. “In the vicinity” needs to be clarified in terms of a specific distance. Many cities and towns have a large concentration of places of worship. The clause as it stands could make it virtually impossible to protest, as other noble Lords have said, including taking protests to Parliament or other such places on which protesters might wish to focus in order to make their point to people in positions of influence—for example, in government.

The Green Party feels that 50 metres is a sensible compromise that would provide clarity for police on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests while protecting the Article 11 right. Amendment 372ZA would help the police because it is so specific that they could take a tape measure to protests to make sure that protesters were at the designated distance. It would also help protesters, because they would know whether they were legally allowed to protest at that point or not. I urge the Minister to think about this and to clarify what “in the vicinity” means. It is far too vague to bring in in legislation. Surely the Government must see that.

The phrase “may intimidate” again is terribly vague, and I do not understand why anybody would put that in a Bill. This is bad writing—which is why we have so many amendments labelled ZA, ZZ and BZ and so on Report. All our diverse communities have to be supported and defended, but Clause 139, as it stands, will not do that because it is too vague. There are existing powers to address racial and religious hatred and violence. Under the Public Order Act 1986, the police can impose conditions on protests that may compel people not to worship, disrupt the activities of an organisation or intimidate or harass people in the vicinity. My amendment tries to make things clearer. As always, I am just trying to help the Government get things right.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Before she sits down, I put to the noble Baroness that her amendments would not achieve the purpose that I understand the Government to have with Clause 139. If you confer the power in relation only to a protest that takes place within 50 metres then you are not going to achieve the purpose, which is to ensure that people are able to get to and away from their synagogue every Saturday. If there is a march of hundreds or thousands of people that impedes their access, 50 metres is not going to work. As I have already put to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, protest is a balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of other people. The noble Baroness is ignoring the rights of others.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I cannot tell you how much energy and self-control it has taken to stay seated, with all these interventions and comments. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his very kind comments and the photographs, which have obviously brought back a lot of very nice, happy memories. I thank him for that. The other aspect to my having to exercise loads of self- control in staying sitting down is that I get very agitated —very irritated, in fact—and I scribble all over the papers I have in front of me, which sometimes makes it difficult to reply fully. I am going to do my best, and I beg the patience of the House in allowing me to go through all my scribbles.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger and Lord Marks, for their support. I am very grateful. Obviously, this is a day that will go in my diary: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, actually agreed with something I said. That is quite rare.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I did not necessarily agree that the Baroness, Lady Jones, should be mentioned in the same sentence as Martin Luther King and Emmeline Pankhurst—I just wanted to make that clear.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord. I would like to say, by the way, that I did go to Aldermaston, but my first real protest was in 1968 when I was 18. I went on a CND rally, and it was peaceful—at least, I think it was; I cannot remember.

It is not difficult to counter the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He talked about my being brave enough—perhaps he did not use the word “brave”—to go to protests without a mask, but, of course, I am a highly privileged white female and he is a highly privileged white male. It is not for us to say who might be vulnerable and who might not, and who might fear reprisals and who might not. Let us remember that there are people who live in fear of other people, and those people could easily be deterred from going to protests.

On the points from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the Minister, the fact is that the police have enough powers already. If they really are requesting this, surely the Government should have a little bit more pragmatism about what they are passing. The fact that the Minister is so happy that two Tories are supporting him is something I honestly find quite shocking. If they are the only people he can rouse to support him in your Lordships’ House, that really says something—and I do not mean for any of you to stand up and support him: it is not necessary.

On the issue of the police getting confused, because the legislation at the moment is very confused—there is so much of it—