Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

A slew of tragic events, most recently the brutal murders of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa, continue to strike fear into young women who just want to get home safely. It is our duty to ensure these protections and we can help by including sex and gender in the Bill. It should be a given right that every individual can arrive home safely after a day at work or simply meeting friends at the pub. This amendment is just one way of ensuring that everyone, regardless of their sex or gender, is protected. It is our duty to ensure that what happened to Sarah, Sabina and countless others does not happen again. I am certain that this amendment goes some way towards achieving that important aim.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment to which I have added my name, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, whose statement was typically eloquent. I will not say that I rise “briefly”, since earlier today almost every noble Lord who said that went on to speak at length.

This amendment is essentially a continuation of a discussion that the Minister will remember extremely well from springtime, when we were talking about the Domestic Abuse Bill and misogyny in particular. That was probably the first time in this House that we had ever really had discussions about misogyny. Eight months is a very long time when it comes to domestic abuse. Now every noble Lord is aware of misogyny and of how pervasive it is. To some extent, those eight months have helped the case for an amendment such as this.

On 17 March, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned, the Minister announced that the Home Office will require all police forces in England and Wales to record crimes, primarily against women, that they regard as misogynistic in intent. We were told that this would happen by autumn. I have checked on a search engine when autumn officially ends and, much to my surprise, it ends on 21 December, which seems rather late. Therefore, the Government have a little more time to deliver, but if the Minister cannot tell us this evening, can she please come back and tell us when the guidance that will be given to police forces to collect this data—systematically and consistently, which is the most important thing—will be available?

This morning I asked a very senior police officer, a lady who is on the National Police Chiefs’ Council, if she knew when it was coming. She did not but basically said, “Please get a move on, we are all dying for this to arrive.” Her own police force, one of the largest in the country, has systematically rolled out domestic abuse training for the vast majority of its officers, which has been extremely well received. They are absolutely primed to receive this guidance when it arrives, so please can we get a move on and please can we have a commitment, either at the Dispatch Box later or in writing, on exactly when we can expect this? If this very senior police did not know, I certainly hope that the Minister does.

This amendment has the virtue, above all, of brevity and great simplicity. It will probably not surprise noble Lords that the person behind the brevity and clarity, of which he is very much in favour, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He is unable to be with us this evening. I think he hoped that brevity would mean just that when noble Lords said that they would be brief. Unfortunately, he was disappointed and so cannot be here, but we can assume that the thrust and nature of this amendment has a great deal to do with his guidance and his input. To use his phrase when we were talking about this, “Let’s just go for the jugular”. That is what this is about.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Equality Act 2010 defined nine different protected characteristics. This amendment specifically would equalise sex and gender with the other key innate characteristics: sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, race, disability and religion or belief. As noble Lords have said, it is designed to protect anybody and everybody; it is totally inclusive. It is not defining people by what gender they have, they chose to have, they think they have or were born with; it is designed to protect everybody.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentioned gender reassignment, but the amendment does not say “gender reassignment”, it says “gender”.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

If the noble Lord looks at the amendment, it says

“or presumed sex or gender”.

That is as presumed by the perpetrator.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my point is that in arguing for the amendment the noble Lord mentioned the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, not gender.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I think I was quoting from the Equality Act, but if I was not—the noble Lord here says I was right, so if one looks at the Equality Act and the protected characteristics, that is one of them. If I am wrong, I apologise in advance.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, is no longer in her place. Gender is not a protected characteristic under the equality legislation. Gender reassignment is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

That is exactly what the noble Lord said. He said that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and gender is not, which is what this amendment addresses.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord. If anyone else wants further clarification, I am sure other noble Lords who have read the Equality Act will come in and back me up.

A particular point that I think my noble and learned friend Lord Judge would have made, were he able to be with us, is that he is clear that this amendment and change to the Sentencing Act would be welcomed by the judiciary, who are often asked to make quite difficult judgments. This would make their ability to do so a great deal easier.

There is another important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned how some police forces around the country voluntarily started recording alleged misogynistic acts, primarily against women. We had a briefing last week, which I attended online, in which two of the police forces involved—Nottinghamshire Police and South Yorkshire Police—gave evidence, several years on, about how effective that was. The thing that came out clearly, which they find very frustrating, is that having amassed this information and passed it on to the Crown Prosecution Service, the way in which the CPS deals with the information and data that has been recorded and given to it as additional evidence when considering or making prosecutions is wholly inconsistent between different offices and areas. One of the virtues of inserting this amendment into the Sentencing Act is that it would make it crystal clear to the Crown Prosecution Service that information must be part of any case that is potentially brought before the judiciary, because this data is required to be considered when thinking about sentencing.

I commend this amendment to the Committee. It is simple, unambiguous and protects everybody.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The following characteristics are protected under the Equality Act: age—something else that we do not need to worry about; gender reassignment; and sex. There are others, but those are the three. Sex being a protected characteristic means that you are entitled not to be discriminated against on the ground of your sex, whether you are a man or a woman. That means that if you are a transgender woman, you will be entitled to be protected on the grounds of sex because you are a woman, and on the grounds of gender reassignment. So, the noble Lord says that gender is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, but a person is entitled, as one would expect, not to be discriminated against because of their sex.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am of a mind to be opposed to the introduction of a misogyny hate crime, but your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be sharing my broader thoughts with the Committee at this late hour. However, there are problems that we need to be clear about before we can even have this conversation. What is our definition of misogyny here? We just assume that we are talking about it as a hatred of women, but it is not straightforward to legislate against hatred of women in 2021, when there is such a toxic debate about what our definition of a woman is. What is a woman, and who is and is not a woman? We heard a very lively discussion earlier; we in this place do not necessarily agree.

We know that somebody can simply declare themselves a woman, regardless of biological reality. We know that the debate about whether only women have cervixes has scuppered leading politicians, who seem unsure about biology in that regard. I do not say this to be glib, in case the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, thinks I am trying to stir up trouble again. I do so because it seems a genuine issue that the conflation of sex and gender—I know that the amendment does not do that; it separates them out—means that “misogyny”, as hatred of women, is not straightforward at the moment.

I also want to know which or what misogyny this amendment is trying to address. If you erase, for example, sex-based rights, which is what some feminists think is going on at the moment, is that a misogynistic outlook? Some feminists certainly argue that it is. There is certainly a huge amount of visceral and vile hatred thrown at gender-critical women, meted out by some of the gender and trans extremists—not by trans people in general, I hasten to add, but the kinds of people who drove Professor Kathleen Stock out of her job at Sussex University. They sounded misogynistic to me, but are they the target of this amendment? I am drawing attention to the fact that wanting a misogynistic hate crime does not clarify to me what the amendment is trying to do.

I understand that what I have said is contentious and that not everybody here will agree with some of the points I have made even so far. In this context, is it appropriate to get the law, let alone the police on the ground, to try to untangle what is a very toxic discussion in society and implement this? I do not know how putting that on to the police will help women.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Would the noble Baroness perhaps accept that if she was to speak to some of the senior police officers, men and women, who have to deal with the victims of hostility and aggravated crimes, largely motivated by misogyny, and ask them what they think misogyny is, she would get a very clear response? They interact on a day-to-day basis with people who are direct victims of it.

While it is very interesting to have a “Moral Maze”-like discussion at a theoretical level, to be clear, what those of us proposing this amendment, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, want, is to do something now for the victims experiencing hostility based on misogyny. We should not be talking in airy circles about this; we need to do something.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I will try to avoid airy circles. Not long ago, I was invited to speak to a gathering of police officers of various ranks on the issue of hate crimes and I can safely say that it was a 50/50 split. As an aside, quite a number of the female officers there were supportive of me and my position, so this is not an airy-fairy, “Moral Maze” position, although it does try to have some principle.

I was about to go on to talk about policing. I understand that one of the reasons there is a sense of urgency about making misogyny a hate crime is in response to horrendous and high-profile murders and rapes of women. We are all mentioning Sarah Everard, but there are many more. I wonder whether, in fact, framing violence against women through hate will solve the problem that it says it will tackle. As far as I can see, we have laws against indecent exposure, stalking, voyeurism, sexual assault, domestic abuse and rape. They are criminal offences, largely serious, and I do not understand why an additional law would act as a further deterrent or reassure women—I do not get that. If, as some argue—I agree with them—women are having problems gaining justice for those very acts in the courts at present, why would hate crime as an aggravated offence make any difference if the crimes in question are not being policed, investigated or prosecuted satisfactorily in the first place?

When I read the literature on misogyny and hate crimes—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—the theory goes that minor incidents of gross sexist behaviour are misogynistic and indisputably part of a continuum that will lead to more serious crimes. I worry, however, that there is a danger there of relativising the horrors of rape and murder and tangling up the police in events that are not as serious, meaning that they take their eye off the ball in what I think they need to be doing: policing the streets, protecting people, prosecuting and so on. I am worried that this will cause a distraction for the police from doing the very job they need to be doing.

To use one example—I have been involved in talking to people in the area—the organised networks of male grooming and the systematic abuse and rape of vulnerable young women in Rochdale and Rotherham were largely ignored by the authorities, downplayed and continually not discussed. That is what we should be discussing here. Labelling the abuse as misogynistic does not seem to me to help; I just want the authorities to do the job of investigating when women are abused. That is far more important.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

In doing a little bit of research for this, I went on to the internet and put in “road traffic offences exceptional hardship”. I think I referred in an earlier intervention earlier to the huge legal business that exists to assist drivers who wish to contest some of the allegations against them for their driving. If you put that phrase into a search engine, first of all, you find a huge number of law firms giving you chapter and verse on the ways in which one can plead exceptional hardship. Pressing where it says “videos” gives a whole series of videos where very convincing lawyers, looking very smooth, tell you with a great degree of confidence—probably on the basis of some financially lucrative experience—just how it is possible to contest a ban and plead exceptional hardship. The very fact that it is so easy to find and is clearly a large and lucrative business tells us immediately that something is clearly wrong. The law is, to some extent, making an ass of itself. For those who are able to benefit from it, it is a very profitable endeavour.

Having a licence is not a right; it is a privilege. If people misuse and abuse that privilege, it is completely right that it should be removed. An awful lot of those people who do regard it genuinely as a right, and are deeply affronted at the idea that they should be stopped, are precisely the people against whom a ban is the most effective. In many cases, their driving and their ability to be seen by others driving, often rather flagrantly, is part of their persona and part of their identity. In a sense, removing their ability to drive is a form of emasculation. Despite being male, I am all in favour of emasculation when it comes to an egregious offence like that.

Again, we are looking at huge inconsistency. I will use only one example; it is such an egregious example that I hope your Lordships will forgive me. There is a gentleman called Alex McFarlane who, in only three months—between June and August 2014, so in one year—triggered safety cameras seven times and did not respond to a single penalty notice. In that three months, he managed to rack up a total of 42 points on his driving licence. When he came in front of the magistrates in Southend, what did he say? He said, “If banned, I will lose my job and my home, and I will be unable to pay off my debts”. The second point he made was the clincher. “Since the incident”, he claimed, “I have been treated for a nervous breakdown, which led to a spending spree and me incurring very heavy debts”. The magistrates accepted his plea. I rest my case.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness. My only complaint is that I do not think it is aggressive enough. I have driven for several decades. I have driven for hundreds of thousands of miles. Touch wood, I have never been prosecuted for a moving traffic offence. The penalty points system is a good system. If I picked up three points for speeding, or for some minor offence, I would be extremely careful not to reoffend. So I do not understand why, if people get a few points, they cannot take the lesson and be compliant. I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Pedestrians, cyclists and other road users are expected to be collateral damage to our determination to travel on our roads using our cars. The idea that we do not need a review of traffic laws and offences is ridiculous. I look forward to the Minister stepping up and saying he will do this straightaway.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support both amendments, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of which I am a co-signatory. As discussed earlier, most UK road traffic legislation predates the modern era and lags some way behind. I am ancient enough to remember that in the 1950s, when travelling around probably at high speed with my mother in her two-seater red MG, RAC officers would stand to attention and salute as we went past, after seeing the RAC badge. That does not seem to happen any more. I can also remember the designer of the Mini, Sir Alec Issigonis of blessed memory. He had two rules when driving a car. First, he did not allow a wireless—as they were then called—in his car, because he thought that was a distraction. Secondly, if anybody was a passenger in his car, including Lady Issigonis, silence was required. He felt that any discourse was a distraction from driving. It is rather different now with the array of technology in one’s car, including technology allowing the car to talk back. Perhaps some people find that preferable to having their other half talk to them, but that is another matter.

I live in SW6, where the roads are like the wild south-west. I go around a lot by bicycle, and every day I see the most extraordinary and flagrant driving and bicycling. At a local Tesco Metro there is a security guard, who I know is there when his state-of-the-art electric bicycle is locked up outside. I spoke to him and looked at his bicycle, as it is a great deal more powerful than mine. I asked him, “How fast does it go?” and he said, “About 50 miles an hour.” I said, “Do you realise that’s illegal?” He said, “Oh yeah. I had it down the road the other day, and a couple of police officers came up admiring the bicycle, asked me how fast it would go, and were very impressed.” That is a strange state of affairs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned e-scooters, which I see all over the place. They are incredibly dangerous. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked earlier about Edinburgh, where the bicycle lanes have been designed in such a way that they are now full of leaves. There is no equipment to clean them, so people are in mortal danger if they ride a bicycle in a bicycle lane. That is not good.

That is only part of the problem. As the Minister may recall, during the debate on some earlier aspects of the Bill, we talked in particular about a report from September by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. It so happens that that same institution produced a report in July last year called Roads Policing: Not Optional. It looked at the state of road policing and the enforcement of the types of laws and regulations across England and Wales about which we are talking. If you are responsible for enforcement, it is not a happy read. It says:

“we found that the importance of roads policing has been in decline”

for many years. In some instances, it found police forces where the officers in charge of road policing were not familiar with the relevant road traffic laws which they were meant to enforce. It asked several questions about the state of enforcement of these laws:

“How effective are the national and local strategic approaches to roads policing? Roads policing in some forces is inadequate … How well are capability and capacity matched to demand? Often capability and capacity doesn’t meet demand … How well do the police engage with the public and partners? A lack of co-ordination hinders effective engagement with the public and partners … How well are police officers trained to deal with roads policing matters? Roads policing training should be standardised and accredited.”


It then made a series of 13 eminently sensible recommendations.

If we are to have a wholesale review of road traffic offences, it has to be done hand in hand with enforcement. There is no point in having laws and regulations if we are incapable of enforcing them consistently. You may say that the time is not now but, at some point in the future, we are going to have to do something before more and more people are killed and there are more and more complex remote vehicles, e-scooters and all the rest of it. Why not just acknowledge that and bite the bullet now, rather than kick the can down the road, which we have been doing for so many years?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief because I think that the arguments in favour of these two amendments have been made very powerfully. They are both intended to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of road traffic offences and penalties. As has been pointed out, there have been so many changes with our roads and new vehicles in recent years as to justify in itself the need for the review which these two amendments seek. As I understand it, the Government promised a full review of road traffic offences and penalties back in 2014. So far as I know, this has not yet happened. In expressing our support for these amendments and for what they seek to achieve, I simply ask what has happened to the promised review so far as the Government are concerned.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum. I point out that our road traffic laws are quite outdated these days. The laws and the penalties have been patched together over the past few decades and the review is long overdue. I hope that Ministers will take that back.

At some point in history, it became acceptable for people to be killed by cars—pedestrians and cyclists. Other drivers just became collateral damage for our car-obsessed culture. I simply do not understand that.

I support all these amendments and am grateful to have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the NGOs which put so much effort into pulling them together. There seems to be a horrific gap between the penalties for killing someone with your car and killing someone in any other way. Personally, I would like to see mandatory lifetime driving bans brought in for many road traffic offences. At the moment, you can be found guilty of killing someone with a car and be allowed to drive yourself home from the court—it is absolutely unbelievable.

We talk so often about “accidents”, which is completely wrong, because that pre-supposes the outcome of any investigation of a collision. If you are saying it was an “accident”, you are saying, “Oops, sorry, couldn’t help it”, but there is always a cause for such incidents. During my time on the Met police authority, I got the Met police to change its designation of those events from “road traffic accidents” to “road traffic incidents”. We cannot prejudge why it happened.

There is also a huge amount of victim blaming. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the case of the person who accelerated away. When I was knocked off my bike by a motorist, I was on a green light and the motorist was not. He just did not look. I had life-changing injuries from that. I did not do anything about it or follow it through because I think he genuinely just did not look properly, and what is there to do about that? At the same time, we accept such incidents far too often, and we cannot blame the victims all the time; we have to, at some point, start blaming the person who is driving a tonne of metal and who is extremely well protected in the case of any collision.

Let us please replace these patched-up, ancient laws with something that fits today’s circumstances, especially when we are trying to encourage more people to get out of their cars and get on bikes, walk home or get on buses. This really needs to change.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to all these amendments. As you will be aware, the Cross Benches do not suffer from having Whips to tell us what to do, but when a call comes from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking, which I have the privilege of being an officer of, that is as near to a three-line Whip as a Cross-Bencher would recognise.

I was a head-hunter for 30 years, so, during that time, one met a range of human beings, many of whom had a particularly high view of the value of their own contribution in a variety of ways. One learned that there were three things in particular that the male of the species thought they were extraordinarily talented at. One of them was making love—I will leave it to noble Lords and noble Baronesses to decide whether the males of their acquaintance meet that hurdle.

The second is that, when interviewing someone, most men, particularly senior businessmen, think that they are extraordinarily talented at telling—within about 30 seconds—whether they are any good. The evidence suggests that they are 100% wrong all the time.

The third thing that many men think they are extraordinarily talented at is driving. Most of us tend to think that we are pretty good drivers—above average—and while, like most human beings, we occasionally make a mistake or forget one or two things that we should not forget, we are pretty relaxed and generous towards ourselves.

In researching this group of amendments and others that follow, the most clear and consistent factor across the whole range of road traffic offences and behaviour is that they are dealt with in an almost entirely inconsistent manner. The inconsistencies jump out at you, because many of the terminologies used are open to interpretation. Many of these terminologies were created and put into statute or guidance in the 20th century—and we are now, in case noble Lords had not noticed, in the 21st century. In the last two decades, the influence of technology has increased hugely, as all of us who drive are very aware.

I, perhaps, have a high danger capability, but I have bicycled in London for 40 years, on and off, and I drive. When I drive, like most people I have at least one device working in my car. One such device cleverly tells you when there are speed traps coming up, or policemen lurking by the side of the road—or whether there’s been an accident ahead. Equally, however, one is often listening or talking, or, even worse, texting. When I bicycle, I have nothing in my ears and I have all my senses about me. What I see, day in, day out, is pretty egregious behaviour, whether by motorists, cyclists or people on e-scooters—including e-scooters ridden by parents taking their four to five year-old children to school, standing in front of them with neither of them wearing a helmet, something that I find fairly alarming. I see this all around: it has become normal.

Until and unless we are more consistent and clearer about how we define acceptable behaviour when driving, or using any form of transport, and what is unacceptable—what is legal, what is illegal, and the gradations between them—we will continue to have an unacceptable level of inconsistency and more heart-rendingly tragic stories. My goodness, you find a lot of them if you do your research.

It is difficult to find rhyme or reason for such inconsistency. The Minister, as a lawyer, is well aware of the dangers that arise when there is inconsistency in how the law is understood. The Minister will also be aware, as are many lawyers, of the many opportunities that inconsistency affords lawyers. When there is inconsistency, or lack of clarity, in the law, it benefits a huge and very profitable industry in this country consisting of law firms that specialise in enabling people to escape, in a variety of ingenious ways, what are almost certainly the right penalties. That industry exists because of these inconsistencies.

These are clearly all probing amendments, but my plea to the noble Lord is that there is real reason and logic behind them, which is that a lack of clarity leads to inconsistency and stories of human tragedy.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction to this group, and his outline of the problems. I also agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about inconsistency. Unfortunately, however, the provisions in Clause 65 are rather unfair and disproportionate. This provision does not address the mischief. We already have the highest per capita rate of imprisonment in Europe, at 133 per 100,000, and this will not help.

I support Amendment 168, for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

Clause 66 follows hard on the heels of Clause 65 in terms of its undesirability. Can the Minister confirm that these changes would increase the prison population, and if so to what extent?

One of the mischiefs is that, in the event of any road traffic accident, collision, or whatever you like to call it, the insurance companies and relevant contracts forbid policyholders from contacting the other party and, in particular, expressing any form of remorse or forgiveness. This totally flies in the face of the principle of restorative justice. The families, friends and victims can rightly feel aggrieved, due to the insurance regime and not the criminal law. There are other difficulties which I will not weary Committee with. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right to refer to serious injustices.

There is a problem with securing convictions for dangerous driving; convictions and prosecutions are often for the lesser offence of careless driving. I have much sympathy for the comments on careless driving and dangerous driving by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I can say what the two offences are, but I have difficulty knowing how they are applied.

Clause 65 is about careless and dangerous driving in connection with drink or drugs. The maximum penalty for Clause 65-type offences is currently 14 years, and I have rarely seen anything like that applied. The Government are now proposing a more serious penalty—a life sentence—than for grievous bodily harm without intent.

The problem with the new provisions is that some of the substance thresholds for drug-driving offences are very low—well below the level causing impairment as advised by scientists. Furthermore, some substances can remain in the body for quite a while. Some people, such as noble Lords, never take recreational drugs. For some communities and socioeconomic groups, however, drug-taking is common. This could result in serious unfairness, with some offenders faced with a life sentence when their driving at the relevant time was not actually impaired by drugs.

Amendment 152, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes a new definition and distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving, by reference to the standard required to pass the driving test. I remind Committee that I hold a qualification as an HGV driving instructor, albeit that it is a bit out of date.

It is surprisingly easy to get an automatic failure on a driving test, particularly under the heading “Examiner takes action”. Suppose that a candidate is driving along a main road but has left their left hand indicator on. Suppose that another vehicle is waiting to emerge from a side road and could be fooled into thinking that the test candidate intends to turn left off the main road. At that point, the examiner will say, “Cancel your signal”. That would be an automatic failure, because the examiner took action. I do not think, however, that any of us would call that dangerous driving. I think, therefore, that Amendment 152 is flawed.

However, I agree that it is too difficult to secure a conviction for dangerous driving. I wonder whether the careless driving offence ought to be confined to a momentary or short lapse in driving standards while the new offence of reckless driving ought to consider whether there has been a pattern of numerous, relatively minor contraventions that, taken gather, make for a much more serious offence. I suggest that the Minister sets up a meeting with relevant officials and subject matter experts so that we can discuss these important matters offline and understand them better.

Criminal Justice Review: Response to Rape

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am absolutely aware of the figures referred to by the noble Baroness and recognise the need to do more to drive up the number of prosecutions and convictions. That is why this matter is a major focus for the Government and the CPS as we work to reverse what has been a negative trend over the past few years. It is fair to say that, if you look at the very recent history over the past quarter or two, the volume of prosecutions and the proportion of suspects charged have increased. However, progress is too slow and we need to do far more. I know that the CPS is working hard to continue the current trend.

We are putting in significant extra funds. I referred earlier to the independent sexual violence advisers. We have also put in an extra £51 million to increase support for rape and domestic abuse victims. However, more needs to be done, and the Government and I are determined that more will be done.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly echo all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but am profoundly upset that Ministers seem to have gone backwards since we last debated this matter in the Lords on Report. The Minister referred to the 30 deaths that we reported at that time, but at least 16 further women have been murdered since Report on 15 March—a mere 36 days ago. This is deeply shocking evidence of the current failures.

As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, I was invited to join the independent parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform chaired by Elfyn Llwyd MP. At the start of its report, there is a quotation that is important in the context of Amendment G1 today. Tracey Morgan, a victim and now a supporter of many other victims, said to us then,

“The victims I hear from are saying the same things I was 15 years ago—what’s changed? We need to do more. This is about murder prevention.”


Ten years on, nothing has changed. That is 25 years of Tracey’s experience and hundreds of murders. One key perpetrator recommendation from our stalking inquiry remains outstanding, which is having a register of serial stalking perpetrators. Why are they not mentioned in the Government’s amendment?

The Minister insists that Motion G1 is not needed because the problem is one of better management to make the various parts of the multiagency system work better everywhere. We all know that there are pockets of excellent practice, but the safety of victims and the de-escalation of the behaviour of these dangerous perpetrators should not be a postcode lottery. It should be consistent and should give confidence to victims and all those working with them. It should save lives.

I think we all agree that the current MAPPA arrangements need to improve. In 2017, HMICFRS inspected a number of MAPPA cases; this resulted in its report, Living in Fear. The headlines in that report are deeply shocking, with 100% failure in 112 cases inspected across six police force and CPS areas. Victims were left at risk and let down by under-recording and inconsistent services, with patterns missed and incidents being treated as isolated. Victims said that they wanted the police to understand the bigger picture and to receive specialist-led training. There was often no risk identification, assessment or management of stalkers.

In Committee, I talked about the need for a golden thread to run through all interactions with victims and perpetrators. This is particularly vital for perpetrators because we know that their behaviour escalates and becomes more obsessive and violent as time goes on. Only by getting them into the MAPPA process can we achieve that and ensure that this golden thread provides an oversight of behaviour.

Last week, Channel 4’s excellent documentary “24 Hours in Police Custody” had an episode called “Death Us Do Part”. It focused on the 2019 Bedfordshire Police investigation into a severe attack by a female perpetrator on her male partner. She gave him two bleeds on his brain and a fractured eye socket. We saw the frustration that the excellent police domestic violence team faced. The attack on Paul Jenner came just two days after his partner’s early release from prison after a previous serious attack on him. It was evident that there was no contact with HM Prison and Probation Service. The custody sergeant even commented that they knew her well and that it is as if a switch gets turned on and she cannot stop herself attacking him. The investigating officer was struck that after she was arrested, she was already texting her partner, who became frightened and unwilling to co-operate. The officer and her team finally persuaded him that they could help him, but their efforts were constantly undermined by the coercive control that the perpetrator had over him. Sadly, he died a few days later. Given the number of attacks she had made on him over many years and the increasing severity of those attacks, she was well known to everyone in the system. That is why serious and serial domestic violence perpetrators need to be on the register and why there needs to be a duty for all the multiagency partners to work together. If that had happened, this “never event”—a predictable event that should never have been able to happen but did—could have prevented because that golden thread would have prepared and supported Paul Jenner and his partner on her release from prison.

Stalking Awareness Week started on Monday. Robert Buckland QC—incidentally, he was a member of the stalking law reform inquiry with me a decade ago—made a moving video as Secretary of State for Justice, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that he has been a champion for getting on top of stalking. He said of stalking: “We need to call it out. We need to stamp it out. We need to do all we can to deal with the menace of stalking in our society.” I agree. However, that will never happen until a duty for multiagency response is enshrined in legislation, with a database and register to provide that golden thread to identify and stop stalking and domestic abuse perpetrators and save lives. I beg the Government to reconsider.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am not a fan of acronyms at the best of times, but I feel that this evening does call for one, and it is DVAOA—which, as everybody will know, stands for “déjà vu all over again”. So here we are again.

Last Thursday, in another place, there was a lamentable performance by the Government, I must say. For those who have not watched it, I suggest you take a stiff gin and tonic and then sit back and enjoy it. Particularly if you are of the Government’s persuasion, it is not very nice to watch. To her credit, the noble Baroness the Minister, as one might have expected, has performed immeasurably better, and I am very grateful to her for the opening speech, which I thought contained some very positive elements. Because of that, I will rein in the rant that I was going to deliver and make it a rather smaller rant than I would have delivered otherwise.

Why am I and others on our feet again? Some of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, have said very comprehensively has already covered that, but I was going to wave three exhibits. The first was the report that Robert Buckland, our Justice Minister, undertook about stalking and the recommendations that he made. The second, exhibit B, would be one of a certain Alex Chalk, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, who, in his own stalking review, which he did with a fellow Gloucestershire MP, strangely used exactly the same wording as Robert Buckland’s report, basically saying

“Consideration should be given to the production of a register of serial perpetrators”.


Last but not least, exhibit C is from our Home Secretary herself, Priti Patel, who in 2013 edited a report called Rebalancing the Scales for victims. One of the contributions, which she was responsible for editing, said very clearly that a database should be established comprehensively to cover all perpetrators and stalkers.

On Thursday in another place, the Government effectively admitted that the current system is not working as it should, that the current database is out of date and is not working as it should, and the Minister in the Commons, in a much more pared-down way, indicated some of what the Minister said earlier this evening. But what we are really talking about, and this goes back certainly as far as 2004, is a fundamental failure of management and leadership.

I do not have a background in government or public service; I have a background in business, and where I come from, over all those years, the sort of failure of management and leadership that has been consistent through changes in government, changes in Minister, changes in special adviser, would be regarded as a sacking offence, and certainly as a career-limiting offence. Given the awful, relentless toll of women dying, week in and week out, I think that, in the world I come from, it would also be regarded potentially as corporate manslaughter. Noble Lords know what the penalties are for corporate manslaughter: they are considerable. But because this is a Government, and because we are dealing with statutory agencies, that is not an option—but it really is not far off, and it is shameful. And the death toll relentlessly keeps going up, and will keep going up, whatever fine words we say.

As I said, the Minister has been very helpful. I was going to say that, until the point she spoke, I was much clearer about what the Government did not want to do than about what they do want to do, and I am very grateful that she has given some clear indications about the direction they want to go in. We have had, as I am sure the Minister has, some fairly intensive conversations with the domestic abuse commissioner’s office about how she sees things, going forward. She too knows and admits that the current system is not working, but, naturally, given her role and the nature of her relationship with government, she wants to be positive and to try to make it work. I am very keen to be positive, too, and to try to make this work.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We will now move to the next business. We will wait a few minutes for noble Lords to leave the Chamber and for those who will speak in the next debate to come in.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I was pleased to table my amendment in Committee. I welcomed the debate and the overwhelming support from around the House. In particular, I acknowledge the support of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Rosser, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.

I am, perhaps, even more pleased that I have not tabled it again on Report. I am grateful to my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues for giving so much of their time to meet and discuss this; for the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend; and for confirming the Government’s commitment to address issues around community-based services in a letter to me last Thursday.

We all agree that community-based services are vital in supporting the majority of domestic abuse victims who remain at home. Government amendments to ensure that local authorities monitor and report on the impact of their duties under Part 4 on other service provision, are most welcome, as is the Government’s commitment to consult on the provision of community-based domestic abuse services in the upcoming victims law consultation this summer. These have been welcomed not just by me but in a press release, published under the leadership of Barnardo’s, by the domestic abuse commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, domestic abuse campaigner Charlie Webster, Imran Hussain at Action for Children, the End Violence Against Women coalition, the NSPCC and SafeLives. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on uniting these groups and organisations in welcoming the Government’s commitments. This is an incredibly important step forward in understanding and addressing the provision of community-based domestic abuse services, so that all victims, especially children, will be able to access support, regardless of where they live.

I hope the consultation will take a holistic approach to tackling domestic abuse, carefully considering what is needed to support children and adults, as well as programmes to tackle the behaviour of perpetrators and break the cycle of domestic abuse. I am certain that my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues, working with the professional and deeply impressive domestic abuse commissioner—who I thank for her advice—will place community-based services on the same statutory footing as accommodation-based services. I appeal for her office to be properly and adequately funded.

Again, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her time and for the helpful letter she sent me. I am pleased to support the amendments in her name. I look forward to continuing to work with her and with all noble Lords as this important Bill becomes law.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief, not least because of the happy coincidence that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Polak, have largely said what I was going to say. I thank them. I can now go and have a late lunch.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Polak, I was impressed by the Barnardo’s press release last Thursday, with all the different voices speaking in unison. My own experience of dealing with voluntary organisations over many years is that hell hath no fury like different voluntary organisations in pursuit of similar goals and, in particular, similar pools of funding. Peace seems rather dangerously to have broken out in this case. I hope it will continue.

I thank the Government for listening. It was a bit of a no-brainer with a Bill in which 25% of the accommodation-based services for domestic abuse victims were dealt with but 75% were not. That was an open goal waiting to be filled. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged this and acted on it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I took note of the National Audit Office investigation and report into the state of local authority funding. I have observed a variety of individuals in this House—some of whom I have worked in co-operation with—who, for the best of reasons, ceaselessly plead with the Government to put more and more statutory duties on local authorities in a whole variety of different areas. In a sense, this is dangerous because, in a situation where local authorities are under the strains and stresses that they are, piling even more statutory duties or guidance on them runs the risk of mission failure and initiative fatigue. I am very conscious of this. It requires a joined-up approach from the different parts of Her Majesty’s Government.

The Home Office is doing its bit. The Ministry of Justice is going to do what may not come easily to it and talk more openly with the communities department —and vice versa. It was not terribly helpful that the Secretary of State, while acknowledging the councils’ problems, could not resist the political dig of accusing them of poor management. This is a bit rich coming from a national Administration who have spent the amount of money they have on initiatives such as test and trace, or who have presided over the highest number of deaths per million in the world during the current pandemic. Before one starts throwing political missiles at one’s opponents, it does one a lot of good to look in the mirror and have a degree of humility. None of us gets it right all the time.

When the domestic abuse commissioner comes back with her recommendations, I would plead with the various parts of national government and the local authorities to talk to one another, agree, buy into whatever is recommended, and put in place properly thought-through, long-term plans to deliver on this strategy and to fund it properly.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, government Amendment 17 requires the domestic abuse commissioner to prepare and publish a report on

“the need for domestic abuse services in England, and … the provision of such services.”

The report must be published no later than 12 months after this new clause comes into force.

Other government amendments require local authorities to keep under review the impact of the duty to provide accommodation-based services on their provision of other domestic abuse services in the community.

Amendment 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, makes it clear that the public authority may not prioritise accommodation-based support services for persons with a protected characteristic over other support services for the same person, except in so far as those persons have a greater need for accommodation-based services than for other support services.

Amendment 31 would give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the duty in Part 4 to include community services, instead of just accommodation-based services. I agree with the points made and the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in his powerful contribution.

Amendments 85 and 86 in my name are the community service amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, re-tabled. We tabled them pending sight of the Government’s specific commitments and amendments. I will not move them. Like others in the House and outside, we welcome the Government’s amendments and commitment to consult on community-based services as part of the consultation on the victims law. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and to other noble Lords, as well as to all the organisations which have worked on this issue. I also pay tribute to the shadow Minister in the Commons, Jess Phillips, who pursued the proper provision for community-based services with some vigour and determination during the Bill’s passage through the other House.

We now need to see the Government’s words and commitments translated into real progress and meaningful action. The key to achieving this is for services, victims and perpetrators to be looked at holistically; to see what needs to be done in the round to prevent abuse, and to support victims who experience it. This also means providing services for children who are victims, for older victims and for perpetrators, as well as ensuring that there are specialist services for black and ethnic minority victims. Healthcare services are also vital.

--- Later in debate ---

I will be brief because others have already made the arguments, but I thank all the Ministers and their teams for being willing to listen and move on this important point. I hugely welcome the Government’s support of these new provisions and their willingness to use the Domestic Abuse Bill to make these changes.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, like everybody else who has spoken, I say that this is extremely welcome. We thank the Minister for listening to so many voices. It is great that the Government have listened, although, if I were being uncharitable, I would say they have listened somewhat belatedly. I am very pleased that the Law Commission review is now under way. I reflect that it took the influence of a very influential and effective recent Cabinet Minister to persuade her own party to listen, when so many voices have been trying to get the Government to listen over quite a long period. However, thanks are due, and thanks are given.

I am concerned that we often seem to be behind the curve when it comes to so many aspects of online harm and harassment-type behaviour in general. In today’s newspaper there was mention of a YouGov survey which has just been done. Of 1,000 women, 96% of them do not and would not report incidents of harassment to the authorities. One of them pointed out that the police can act if somebody drops litter on the street but are unable to act if somebody is harassed on the street, and that does seem wrong. I think 46% of the 1,000 ladies said, when asked why they did not report harassment, that it was because they had no belief whatever that it would change anything. That is a reflection on the various authorities and organisations that are meant to help victims of harassment. If they feel like that, there is clearly something wrong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, mentioned the extraordinary small market town somewhere in the United Kingdom where no fewer than 70 women have had intimate images shared on an online forum where somebody commented that they are “traded like Pokémon cards”. What must it feel like, as a woman or a man— as a human being—to have intimate images of yourself traded like Pokémon cards? On this online forum if you have an interest in a particular town you can message people on the forum who circulate these images and ask: “Do you have anybody from this particular town or who went to this particular school?” That is really shameful; the fact it is going on shames us all.

I am pleased that we are, belatedly, in catch-up mode. But I find it excruciatingly embarrassing and unacceptable that victims are suffering in many different ways, while Her Majesty’s Government and Parliament occasionally appear to be dithering over regulation and legislating. In doing that we are letting ourselves down, but far more importantly, we are letting the victims down.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords who have spoken, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and, of course, the Government, for accepting these necessary amendments.

At the outset, I also record my thanks to Dr Ann Olivarius of McAllister Olivarius, a very eminent lawyer who, about a decade ago, began her campaign against so-called revenge porn. Her outstanding work, both here and in the US, has definitely made a very significant contribution to the fact that we have had legislation for the last five years and it is a criminal offence to share sexual images without consent.

I welcome this amendment to extend the offence of disclosing

“private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress”

to an individual who appears in the photograph or film— known as a “revenge porn” offence—so as to include “threats to disclose”. One in 14 adults has experienced threats to share intimate images or films of themselves. Young women aged 18-34 are disproportionately impacted by this form of abuse, with one in seven reporting that she has experienced such threats.

Like other noble Lords, I commend Refuge’s The Naked Threat research, which found that the vast majority—72%—of threats experienced by women were made by partners or ex-partners, making it a clear domestic abuse or domestic violence issue. Therefore, the Domestic Abuse Bill is not only the right legislative vehicle for what is clearly a crime related to domestic violence or abuse but a piece of legislation that would allow the Government to make these required changes imminently. As such, I am very grateful for that.

Some 83% of women threatened by their current or former partners experience other forms of abuse alongside these threats. One in 10 women threatened by a current or former partner felt suicidal as a result of the threats, and 83% said that the threats damaged their mental health or emotional well-being. More than one in seven of these women felt a continuous risk of physical violence because of these threats. Only one in three women felt empowered to report this behaviour to the police, and, of those women, less than 14% said that they had received a good response. I am also deeply concerned about the lack of reports coming from black and other minority women.

As I have said previously in this Chamber, perpetrators of domestic abuse are increasingly using technology and the internet to control and abuse their partners and ex-partners. Threats to share images are used to control, coerce and abuse when they are in a relationship, and, after they have separated, this form of abuse is disproportionately perpetrated against younger women. Survivors of this form of abuse lack the vital legal protection that they need, with the police often telling survivors—or making them believe—that they cannot take any action until the abuser has shared the images, leaving survivors in fear and enabling perpetrators to use these threats to control them.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I thank Refuge, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Barnardo’s, among others, which recommend making threats to share intimate images a crime, and extending the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate family relationship to remove the cohabitation requirement. This is most welcome; it would therefore cover post-separation abuse, which would protect 4.4 million adults who have experienced this form of abuse.

Young people are the group most likely to be in an abusive relationship. A survey of 13 to 17 year-olds found that 25% of girls and 18% of boys reported having experienced some form of physical violence from an intimate partner. However, the Children’s Society found that 77%—a majority—of local authorities that responded to its FoI request do not have a policy or protocol in place for responding to under-16s who experience teenage relationship abuse, with just 39% of local authorities providing specialist support services for under-16s and 26% of local authorities providing no specialist support for this age group. Tragically, 500 children—mostly teenagers, but some as young as eight years old—were victims of image-based abuse.

The UK Safer Internet Centre is a partnership of three leading charities, including the Internet Watch Foundation. It reported an increase in the number of young people trying to view sexual abuse materials online, and that in just one month of lockdown its analysts blocked 8.8 million attempts by UK users to access such images and videos. We continue to see a rise in the number of children being groomed online into producing self-generated indecent images. I shudder to think of the underreporting, particularly among young people from black and minority-ethnic communities.

Can the noble Lord say what action the Government are considering to influence, inform and educate children and, more widely, the general population? What research, if any, have the Government undertaken into the impact of online abuse of women and intersectional online abuse of women from black and minority communities?

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

A number of other questions were raised, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which I am conscious we will come to in later groups. We have many groups which we need to cover today, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I return to those points in later debates. The Government’s first priority is, as I say, the protection of the public. That is why we have proposed lowering the standard of proof, and why we urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister and I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation but I am somewhat confused. He cites the evidence given by assistant chief constable Tim Jacques and the three examples that he gave. I will carefully read his evidence in Hansard and what the Minister has said the assistant chief constable said.

From what the Minister was saying, the assistant chief constable was saying why TPIMs were necessary. It was because—I think I am quoting the Minister accurately—there was not sufficient evidence to reach the criminal standard of proof, but the criminal standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”. From the examples that the assistant chief constable gave—as I say, I shall go back and read them carefully—I thought there was definitely evidence that the person may be involved in terrorism on the balance of probabilities. There would therefore be no reason in the three scenarios that the assistant chief constable gave for issuing a TPIM against those three people, on the current evidence.

The Minister has apparently ignored the history of this Parliament and its views on so-called future proofing, when it comes to the deprivation of people’s liberties and the severe imposition of restrictions on people’s human rights, as evidenced by the former Labour Government’s attempts to extend the period that terrorist suspects could be detained by the police without charge. Parliament does not take kindly to, “Well, okay, we accept that there is no evidence that a change in the standard of proof is necessary in this case, but it might be in the future, so we’re doing it just in case”. We cannot deprive people of their liberty to the extent that TPIMs do on the basis of “Well, it might be required in future”.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 37 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Clause 38: TPIMs: extension of time limit

Amendment 29

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak in this group to Amendment 30, which I have signed, together with my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Clause 38, to which all these amendments relate, seeks to return in another respect to the days of control orders by removing the maximum time limit on TPIMs. Though I oppose Clause 38, as I did Clause 37 in the previous group, I would accept that the issues in this group are less clear-cut and the right solution less obvious.

In a report on the control order regime published in March 2012, shortly after that regime came to an end, I described control orders as an effective means of protecting the public from a small number of suspected terrorists who presented a substantial risk to national security but whom it was not feasible to prosecute. I observed a conscientious administrative procedure, coupled with close judicial scrutiny, which ensured a substantial degree of fairness to the subject. However, I added that those individuals were placed under extraordinary and intrusive restrictions; that this could go on indefinitely; that legal review was far from immediate; and that when the hearing did come around, controlled persons spent crucial parts of it excluded from the court, oblivious both of the detailed accusations made against them and of the submissions made by special advocates, who were able neither to communicate fully with them nor to call evidence on their behalf. I concluded that only in the face of strong necessity could it ever be justifiable for the individual to be placed in such a position by the state.

As will be the case if Clause 38 is enacted, there was no limit on the number of times a 12-month control order could be extended, so long as the statutory test continued to be met. During the currency of the control order regime, from 2005 to 2011, 15 persons were subject to control orders for more than two years—three of them for periods exceeding four years. Each of the four who had been subject to control orders for more than two years at the end of 2011 were transferred to TPIMs, where, as I recall, they served an additional two years, which was the maximum under that regime unless fresh evidence came to light—it rarely does.

Experience shows, therefore, that where the law has permitted it, Home Secretaries have considered it appropriate to keep British citizens who have never been convicted of a terrorist offence under these kinds of extreme constraints for periods in excess of five years. Indeed, had it not been for the introduction of the two-year limit, as originally recommended for all save exceptional cases by my noble friend Lord Carlile —my predecessor as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—it is fair to assume that some subjects could have been detained in this way for far longer periods. That has been the experience with other, less all-encompassing executive orders, such as terrorist asset freezes. After all, who wants to be the civil servant or the special adviser to recommend the discharge of a control order, and who wants to be the Secretary of State to agree to it?

At the monthly TPIM review group meetings, at which all subjects were discussed, it became evident to me that the new two-year maximum limit was bringing some benefits. Since it was no longer possible for a TPIM to be used to warehouse a subject indefinitely, more serious and connected thought started to be given to an exit strategy: a suitable job, a suitable course of study, and the forging of new relationships away from the subject’s previous associates. However, as will be equally obvious, there could still be subjects who use their two years to lie low and who might still be adjudged to pose a threat when their TPIM comes to an end. That was the reasoning of those who had requested, agreed to and endorsed control orders for much longer periods than two years. I reported myself in 2013, echoing my noble friend Lord Carlile, that it was tempting to wish for longer than two years in the most serious cases.

If the goal is to minimise the potential threat regardless of the cost to civil liberties, the Government are justified in imposing indefinite executive detention. Yet that goal could also be used to justify warrantless searches of the home and general, suspicionless stop and search. All of us, surely, would instinctively recoil at such measures. I also note that, although they are notionally available in Northern Ireland, no control order or TPIM has, for whatever reason, ever been imposed there. I accept that TPIMs, although so far imposed predominantly, if not exclusively, on Muslims, have so far been only a minor rallying point for grievance: the numbers of TPIMs have been small, and the vast majority of British Muslims are only too glad to see dangerous extremists firmly dealt with. But the echo of internment can still be heard in Northern Ireland, nearly half a century on—a reminder that excess of zeal in this sensitive area can quickly become counterproductive.

There is wisdom in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who wrote, when Justice Secretary, in 2011:

“The primary role of any government is to keep its citizens safe and free. That means both protecting them from harm and protecting their hard-won liberties.”


Where is the correct balance to be struck? We no longer live in times when a Conservative Government could come into power promising in relation to counterterrorism law, as they did in 2010,

“a correction in favour of liberty”.

So my amendment does not seek a perpetuation of the status quo. Indeed, it would double the current maximum limit, in the absence of additional evidence, to four years, allowing plenty of time to work on TPIM subjects, while still requiring the authorities to focus on an exit strategy. Coupled with the amendment that I have already moved on standard of proof, or one of the other amendments in the previous group, it would represent a toughening of the present regime, while still at least attempting to combine the two imperatives that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, identified.

Terrorism in this country has cost us almost 100 lives since 9/11, and the threat level, although reduced only yesterday, is still “substantial”. However, as this pandemic reminds us, the existence of a threat cannot by itself dictate where the balance should be struck. The balance is for Parliament, and I suggest that a maximum of four years for these unpalatable measures—tough as it undoubtedly is—gets it about right.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker on the list, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

I want to add only one point to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has just said, because I agree with the entirety of it. That one point is derived from my own experience of dealing with people who were imprisoned indefinitely under the IPP regime. During the hearing of several appeals, it became apparent that indefinite detention often makes someone more dangerous because you take away hope. I very much anticipate that we would never get to the stage where we made TPIMs that lasted for a person’s entire lifetime. The TPIM would have to come to an end at some stage, and, to my mind, giving someone a clear expectation of when the period of restriction is to end helps in dealing with the individual and prevents making him more dangerous by depriving him of any hope.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that that provides reassurances to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I invite them not to oppose the clause.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, unfortunately, the imperfection of the current system of remote participation means that one has to put in one’s request to speak “after the Minister” before the Minister has finished speaking. If the Minister in his last few sentences answers the question that you were going to ask, your question becomes obsolete, as is the case here.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to the debate.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

I am in much the same position as I was with an earlier amendment: I do not see what is not already provided for in current legislation. I would be interested to know whether the examples used by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—the radicalising threats to children and the case of someone who is suspected of being a not-yet-fulfilled attack planner—are examples of where the police have had a real problem.

I am not reassured that a measure is “likely” not to be over 16 hours. In response to various questions, we seem to be getting the answer, “It’s necessary because it’s necessary”. We will, of course, think about this particular aspect after today; tonight, I will not seek to oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 40 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30C. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 41: TPIMs: polygraph measure

Amendment 30C

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we have Amendments 30C and 30D in this group, as well as the clause stand part debate. These take us to polygraph measures, where we were not so many hours ago in connection with terrorist offenders—those were, of course, “offenders”, while the individuals subject to TPIMs are not.

If a polygraph measure is imposed as a requirement of a TPIM and the subject refuses to comply, then one asks: so what? That becomes an offence, as I understand it, and the subject would be liable to imprisonment for up to five years and/or an unlimited fine. In an attempt to think about the “so what?” question, Amendment 30C refers to Section 12 of the 2011 Act. That section deals with the variation of measures, with some safeguards. I will not hold it against the noble Lord if he says that the drafting leaves a lot to be desired; I dare say it does. The point is to seek to be sure that what is learned from a polygraph, and so points the examiner and therefore the police in a particular direction, cannot override the safeguards in legislation.

On Amendment 30D, we know that polygraphs cannot be used as evidence in proceedings. Can they be used to point to where there may be evidence? I assume that they can, so will the Minister therefore confirm whether this can be used as evidence of a breach of a TPIM, or to extend or impose a further TPIM? I think the Law Society has made the point—I hope I am not misquoting it—that polygraphs should not be used as a route to impose a TPIM. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I do not have anything to add on the substance of the amendments which my noble friend Lady Hamwee has outlined. However, I would like to go back to something that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford raised in relation to the use of polygraph tests on convicted terrorists who were subject to licence: the right to silence. Quite rightly, the noble and learned Lord who was the Minister at the time said that, because these people would be convicted offenders under licence, they had no right to silence. But TPIM subjects are not convicted offenders on licence; they are unconvicted. That is the whole idea of a TPIM, and so they do have a right to silence. The question for the Minister is: would it be a breach of TPIM conditions, which is a criminal offence for which the person could be sent to prison, if they refuse to participate in a polygraph test or if, in a polygraph test, they refuse to say anything?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 41 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 30E. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 42: TPIMs: drug testing measure

Amendment 30E

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 42 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 30F. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 43: TPIMs: provision of information

Amendment 30F

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 46 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 32. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 47: Persons vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism: timing of independent review

Amendment 32

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

146: Clause 70, page 54, line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under this section which takes account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.(2B) In preparing guidance under subsection (2A) the Secretary of State must require the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force; and(b) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, have also involved domestic abuse.(2C) In this section—“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex, or(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex;“sex” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 (sex).”

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 146 in my name, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I will explore this relatively fully because it is, I think, the first time that misogyny, per se, has reared its ugly head in this Bill, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I go into detail to explain why I think it is important to consider it.

What, then, is the issue? What is this about and why on earth would anyone want to open what some might consider the Pandora’s box of recognising the link between misogyny and domestic abuse? Indeed, is this the “woke police” on the march, or is there actually a reason behind it?

Violence against women does not occur in a vacuum. Hostility towards them generates a culture in which violence and abuse are being tolerated, excused and repeated. Changing that means challenging not only individual acts of abuse but the very roots of the culture that enables it. Gathering the evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women, and how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse, is crucial to recognising these connections.

At Second Reading I mentioned the dreadful case of Kellie Sutton, a mother of three children under 15 who killed herself in 2017 after suffering five months of psychological and physical abuse from her partner, who was subsequently jailed for four years and three months and, in addition, given a 10-year criminal behaviour order requiring him to tell the police of any sexual relationship lasting more than 14 days that he enters into. Why is this case relevant to the amendment? It is because the perpetrator had already been reported to the police in previous years by three different partners. In his regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, the senior coroner for Hertfordshire highlighted the fact that police records failed to flag up that this was a repeat domestic abuse perpetrator. The previous three complaints had been filed away as non-crime reports, which meant that the police would have found a link to the perpetrator only if they had searched for the victims, since no reports at all had been filed against the abuser. The coroner concluded in his report:

“This sort of information is clearly of value to inform officers’ decision making, when dealing with a report of potential domestic abuse and clearly of value when seeking to safeguard more widely the vulnerable parties in abusive relationships.”


The amendment seeks to do that by learning from the experience of the police forces around the country which have started to record misogyny as a hate crime. By requiring all police forces to do that and to assess how it influences incidents of domestic abuse, the amendment seeks to add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women and so the work on how to end it.

We are all aware that police forces are very stretched in their manpower resources, and that they approach domestic abuse incidents with great caution. Given the pressures that the police are under, why have some forces voluntarily taken on what some might regard as just more form-filling or box-ticking? The evidence of where misogyny has been identified as a hate crime to date by police forces in their recording of crime has been that it helps increase the understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women. It is critical that every case of domestic abuse should be taken seriously and each individual given access to the support they need.

Both men and women may experience incidents of interpersonal violence and abuse but women are considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse, including sexual violence. They are also more likely to have experienced sustained physical, psychological or emotional abuse, or violence that results in injury or death. There are important differences between male violence against women and female violence against men; namely, the amount, severity and impact. Women experience much higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of domestic abuse.

In one study of 96 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police, it was found that men are significantly more likely than women to be repeat perpetrators and to use physical violence, threats and harassment. Over a six-year tracking period, the majority—83%—of recorded male perpetrators had at least two incidents of recorded abuse, with many having a lot more and one man having no fewer than 52 repeat incidents, whereas in cases where women were recorded as the perpetrator, the majority, 62%, had only one incident of abuse recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight, compared with 52.

In 2016 Nottinghamshire Police became the first police force in the country to enable women and girls to report cases of abuse and harassment as misogyny under their misogyny hate crime policy. Misogynistic hate crimes recorded by the police since Nottinghamshire adopted that policy include stalking, groping, indecent assault and kidnapping. While they initially did not include domestic abuse in that reporting as it was already being recorded as a form of crime, those involved in the scheme now say:

“Our experience of delivering training to the police tells us that, even though domestic abuse is not included within the hate crime policy, officers are often able to recognise that misogyny is likely to be at the root of this too. Similarly, we are aware that misogyny hate crime can act as a bridge to women talking about (and recognising) other forms of violence against women. Where women may feel that domestic abuse is something that happens to other women and is not linked to inequality, they are more readily able to recognise this with misogyny hate crime.”


Following Nottinghamshire’s example, the police forces in North Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset, and Northamptonshire have also made misogyny a hate crime, and are therefore already recording these figures to enable such an approach. The amendment would require other police forces to follow suit. Women’s Aid reports that police forces that are recording misogyny have not seen an influx of reporting of wolf-whistling but instead have received a growing number of reports of serious sexual harassment and assault. Making misogyny a hate crime would mean simply that police forces logged and monitored such incidents and thereby enabled to create a fuller picture of the problem, support victims and make them aware of where incidents were recurring. Indeed, women and girls need to feel that their concerns are being taken seriously by the police and that misogyny is not normalised. Categorising and calling out misogyny wherever it occurs would send a clear message that such behaviour was not acceptable, and should prevent more serious offences in the long term.

As we all know, domestic abuse cases have risen dramatically during the pandemic crisis, with cases of domestic homicides doubling in the UK. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must give guidance on the kinds of behaviour that amount to domestic abuse. The amendment states that the guidance should further take account of

“evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.”

While there is no legal definition of “hostility”, the Crown Prosecution Service uses the everyday understanding of the word, which includes ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. The amendment seeks to build on that concept. It would ensure that all police forces in England and Wales recorded any crimes where the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated by this hostility or perceived the perpetrator to have demonstrated hostility in committing the crime. The police would then also be required to assess how that interacted with domestic abuse by making an assessment of how many of those crimes met the definition as set out in this legislation.

Proposals to recognise misogyny as a category of hate crime would therefore not make anything illegal if it was not illegal already. Instead, the amendment would help build our understanding of the forms of violence and abuse that women experience by ensuring that all were recorded. Those working in areas where this approach is being taken have reported the transformative effect that it has had on safety. As Helen Voce, CEO of the Nottingham Women’s Centre, pointed out:

“Misogyny is the soil in which violence against women grows.”


That is why we need to tackle it.

Following an amendment to the upskirting Bill, Her Majesty’s Government instructed the Law Commission to carry out a review of all hate crime and to consider incorporating misogyny as a new category of hate crime. The commission notes that there were 67,000 incidents of hate crime based on gender in 2018, 57,000 of which were targeted at women. Without recognising the role of misogyny in the experiences of women, our legal and criminal justice system masks the true extent of hostility based on gender.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been excellent. I can categorically attest to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is not a misogynist. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about how the behaviour of parents has almost a direct correlation with how their children might behave when they grow up. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, talked about the trans community; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, might have looked at my notes because the words I have written in response to her remarks are almost identical to what he said: that hate crime laws in England and Wales protect identity characteristics such as race, religion or sexual orientation, or groups such as trans or disabled people.

I thank noble Lords for all their comments, including the very thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the abuse of parliamentarians—it is horrific to see the comments that people have made—much of which is misogynistic. The opening gambit of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was the tragic case of Kellie Sutton, which shows two things, one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It shows the failure to include domestic abuse in the MAPPA arrangements and the need for more effective use of Clare’s Law; the Bill remedies that, as it puts the guidance on a statutory footing. Noble Lords have talked about police forces that record misogyny. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly pointed out that those which record misogyny also record misandry.

I will be quite clear about the Government’s position on hate crime. All crimes that are motivated by hatred are totally unacceptable and have no place in this society. That is why, in 2018, as part of our updating of the Government’s hate crime action plan, we asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of current hate crime legislation, including considering whether other protected characteristics such as sex, gender and age should be included. We asked it to review both the adequacy and the parity of protection offered by the law relating to hate crime and to make recommendations for reform. This review began in 2019; over the course of that year and last, the Law Commission tried to meet as many people as possible who had an interest in this area of law, organising events across England and Wales to gather views and, of course, evidence, which the noble Lord so often talks about.

The noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lucas, stressed the importance of data in our considerations. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about opening a debate with the police; I am sure that, following the Law Commission’s findings, such a debate will be opened up. However, we have specifically asked the commission to consider the current range of offences, aggravating factors and sentencing, and to make recommendations on the most appropriate models to ensure that the criminal law provides consistent and effective protection from conduct motivated by hatred towards protected groups or characteristics.

The review also took account of the existing range of protected characteristics, identifying any gaps in the scope of protection currently offered under the law and making recommendations to promote a consistent approach. The consultation to support the review closed on Christmas Eve of last year. That consultation focused on whether sex or gender should be added to hate crime laws, noting that misogyny by itself might introduce inconsistency to hate crime laws—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also pointed out.

We will respond to the review when it is completed. Given the range and depth of the work undertaken by the Law Commission, we do not think it would be appropriate to prejudice the outcome of its work, including by issuing guidance or requiring the collection of statistics along the lines proposed by the amendment. As I have said, the noble Lord rightly wants to see evidence-based policy. The work of the Law Commission will add significantly to that evidence base. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we should allow it to complete that work rather than pre-empting it. We will consider what changes need to be made once we have had the opportunity to fully consider the Law Commission’s final recommendations. On the basis of these comments, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this wide-ranging debate. I thought it was appropriate for it to be introduced by a member of the weaker sex, but I thank everybody of whatever sex for their contributions. I thank my colleague in the other place, Stella Creasy. She and I had the pleasure of spending quite a bit of time together at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where I got to know her. She has been a doughty champion of trying to get misogyny recognised as a rather pervasive element in modern society and I applaud her for her efforts, which have been supported across the Chamber in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Young—with his usual erudition and from his commanding height—laid out just how extensive the Law Commission’s interim report is. I, too, waded through 40-odd pages, and I confess that I did not look at about 500 footnotes in detail, but it is very impressive and goes very deep. What comes out of it very clearly is that the case for the prosecution is proven: misogyny is something that actually exists, is tangible and has a very unpleasant effect on a lot of people. However, finding out that it is bad is the easy bit; the difficult bit, which is what the Law Commission is trying to do now, is translating that knowledge—that truth—into legislation in a form that will have a materially beneficial effect on the very large number of victims of misogyny. That is the difficult piece to try to get right. Frankly, the more data that we have to help us try to understand how to do that effectively, the better.

My noble friend Lady Bull laid out some of the international context. This is not something that takes place only in our disunited kingdom, it is an international syndrome and a shameful one. The existence of gender-based hostility is a fact of life and it has probably always been with us from Neolithic times. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, quite rightly made the point that we must have the right information. I am to some extent agnostic on the technical issues of sex versus gender and all the rest of it. That is not a battle that I am going to fight. I do not feel qualified to do so, but I am quite sure that the Law Commission will look at that in detail as it is looking at all the other elements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the pervasiveness of misogyny, based in part, I suspect, on her own experience and that of others that she has seen. It is shameful. She also made an extremely good point about the value of really good police domestic abuse training. I do not know to what extent there is a template for best practice and what good really looks like. I suspect that, as ever, some police forces are doing it infinitely better than others. Can the Minister tell us how much knowledge the Home Office has of where best practice is in existence or being evolved and, if so, what is it doing, or what does it aspire to do, to try to make sure that that is applied everywhere, not just in those police forces that are ahead of the game?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about the importance of enhanced information, but he rightly made the point, as a lawyer, that hate crime is a difficult and very sensitive area, and data really will be king. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I saw the reports about the way in which female athletes have been tormented and abused because they cannot go to the normal stadia and places to exercise. It is absolutely deplorable that one should be trying to do what one loves and has a passion for—indeed, what one may be representing one’s country for—and is subject to abuse on the street. I cannot even imagine what that would be like. I hope that if I witnessed someone doing something like that, I would give them a piece of my mind—not that they would probably take much notice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, also pointed out that misogyny is a recruiting tool for hate groups. In doing research for this debate, I went down one particular rabbit hole that I found on the internet: a very bizarre male forum in which feminism is regarded as the root of many of modern society’s ills and as a conspiracy to belittle men and reduce their role. It was eye-closing, rather than eye-opening, to try to read it, but it exists and we cannot ignore it. We have to try to do something about it.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quite rightly, with his extensive experience, laid out some of the heffalump traps that exist legally and in the way in which the police might try to apply this. He knows far more about it than I do, but I would defer to the Law Commission to try to work its way through some of the complexities that he outlined. I probably agree that they do not necessarily need to be in primary legislation; that is not the object of this probing amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, again, referred to the importance of data and the role of social media. Like him, I greatly look forward to the arrival of our new colleague: his friend and mine, Vernon Coaker. When he arrives, he will be a sterling addition to your Lordships’ House. I also—since I am married to one—agree with the noble Lord on the very important role of powerful women.

The Minister quite rightly mentioned the pervasive influence of the home that one is fortunate or unfortunate enough to grow up in, and how that influences one’s views. We both have shared history in the importance of timely, accurate and informative data. I think we all agree that although we know this is here, we still do not really understand its full complexity, how to record it accurately or how to respond to it. I hope that the Law Commission will come up with some answers, but the pandemic has acted like a pressure cooker on an awful lot of what is going on. Many women and children are suffering unspeakable oppression at the moment and I am very conscious that, while it is neat and tidy to say that we will wait for the Law Commission findings to come out, there is a feeling among most of us who have spoken that it would be good to do as much as we can in the interim to acknowledge that this is a live and shameful issue, rather than just sit on our hands hoping that the Law Commission will pull a rabbit out of the hat.

On that basis, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank the Minister for listening so politely and answering as I expected she might, but I hope that she and her colleagues will consider whether more could be done, given the circumstances that so many of these women and children are in, to try to send some message to police forces about the benefits that other police forces which have trialled this are having from it, and to encourage them to look at it seriously. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 146 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in this morning’s Times there is an article in which the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead officer for child protection, Simon Bailey, said that arresting hundreds of sex offenders every month has little effect, because millions of abuse images are readily available online. Mr Bailey pointed out that the number of indecent images in circulation has risen exponentially, from 7,000 in 1990 to 17 million today. They predominantly involve girls aged between 11 and 13, because 44% of these images were or are self-generated. This is part of the ever-growing online library of intimate images, curated—in the loosest sense of the word—by technology and social media platforms, only some of which grudgingly acknowledge a limited degree of responsibility.

Consider the 11 to 13 year-old girls of today and how they may feel about these images existing and getting into the wrong hands as they navigate through adolescence and towards adulthood. Consider those women who were the 11 to 13 year-olds five, 10 or 15 years ago, who not only have their legacy images stored in the cloud but who may have continued to populate that library in the interceding years. This is the reality of the scale of the problem we are discussing tonight.

The statistics are compelling and depressing. An estimated 130,000 young people aged between 18 and 20 have experienced threats to share their intimate images, and almost 1 million people now in their 20s have experienced similar threats. Whether we like it or not, the sending and receiving of intimate images is an increasingly common part of dating and relationships. In 40% of cases in which individuals have received threats to share intimate images, they did not consent to those photos or videos being taken in the first place.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, which I wholeheartedly support, is an important and necessary part of what must be a legal and societal assault on the myriad ways in which technology can be used to abuse, control and coerce. Whether individuals consented to their images being taken is irrelevant; they should have ironclad protection under the law from those images being used without their consent. Their bodies, their self-esteem and their right to privacy and protection should be theirs and theirs alone.

On 28 December last year, as we enjoyed a later-than-usual Boxing Day bank holiday in England, and your Lordships prepared themselves for the rigours of the 30 December debate on the TCA with the EU, in Dublin, President Higgins signed the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill into law. This created two new offences. One deals with the taking, distribution or publication of, or threat to distribute, intimate images without consent and with intent to cause harm, with the penalty of an unlimited fine or up to seven years in prison.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

I believe that these measures are necessary and appropriate. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

The noble and learned Lord very briefly answered the questions on consultation from my noble friend Lord Thomas. I hope he has in his brief the answer to the headline question of whether consultation was undertaken with probation and what its views were on the balance between custody and licence.

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 11 to 15 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 16: Increase in extension period for serious terrorism offenders aged under 18: England and Wales

Amendment 7

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on what I think is his first outing with the Bill. I know where Tredegar is, but I am not sure I have ever been there. I do know, rather too well, the Brecon Beacons, just to the north, which are very beautiful but also extremely wet and cold, as I recall.

I enter this debate with some trepidation because we have a lot of clever lawyers taking part. On this occasion, I do not mean that in any derogatory sense; this is legislation, and we need it to be examined by clever lawyers who are lawmakers, but I speak only as a layman. We know what the issues are, and in this, as in so much, there is a need for balance. I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said, but we need to not be starry-eyed when thinking that a young person might not be perfectly capable of being radicalised early and remaining radicalised. We need to look at how the judiciary and the legal process can keep tabs on people who have been radicalised. That is why, in this particular case, I am certainly on the side of community safety rather than the rights of offenders.

Religious fanaticism is not, of course, confined to Islam. People inspired by ideology do not always respond well, whatever their ages. In December, Jonathan Hall said that deradicalisation using monitoring and theological programmes does not work. Therefore, we need, in exceptional cases—and there will be very few —to give courts the right, and indeed the duty, to ensure that society is protected, over and above the rights of some very unfortunate young people—young men, almost exclusively—who have transgressed in these terrorist actions.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. I think we are having some problems with him, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have a slightly embarrassing confession to make. When I first decided to get involved with this Bill, I thought it was a completely different Bill. Having realised what is was about, I then realised that it is one of those bits of legislation that is a bit rushed. It reminds me of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through Parliament because of public concern about, I think, 11 very dangerous and nasty incidents of people being savaged by dogs. It proved to be, first, a not very effective piece of legislation, and then, a not very popular one. I also had not realised there would be so many eminent lawyers involved in this debate, and I feel slightly uneasy, because I am coming into this as a member of society who has a very practical reaction to this sort of legislation. I do not believe that locking people up and throwing away the key is the best way of treating them, for all sorts of reasons. I do not mean for them, necessarily, but for society and the whole prison system.

This amendment goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve when we sentence terrorist offenders. Are we locking up monsters and not letting them out again in the hope that prison is going to crush or contain them, or whatever? Or are we locking people away to protect society for as long as it takes to teach them the error of their ways and, perhaps, confront them with the consequences of their actions and return them to society as re-engaged citizens?

Statistics suggest that only a tiny percentage of people who have been locked up for terrorist offences come out and reoffend. We need to look at that and be practical about what we are trying to achieve. It is easy for the Government to appear to be tough on crime, throw red meat to the tabloids and satisfy the people who think that anything less than the death penalty for almost every crime is being soft on crime. I think there might be people on the Government Benches who think like that. But it is much harder for the Government to do the tough work of reintegration into society, which is a much more effective use not only of money but of resources. Locking people up in an extremely expensive prison service just teaches people to be better at crime while they are there.

As we have seen in the United States, extremist ideologies have spread among our own western societies. The so-called QAnon conspiracies, fuelled by Donald Trump, and promulgated across the internet, TV, and among the Republican Party, led people to hope for mass arrests and the execution of their political opponents. This is a domestic terrorism movement, which is growing and exists here in Britain. We are going to be encountering a completely different sort of terrorist: a white terrorist, just for starters. The Government have to step up. The problem is growing, and the solution is not just to lock more people up but to learn how to deal with this at source and also once people have offended. The Government need to rethink this a little bit, and be a bit more practical, and less reactive to perhaps transitory public opinion.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about the benefits of pre-sentence reports. They are, and always have been, when available, important in the context of sentencing generally. They are a sophisticated tool, bringing before a court matters that may not be known to the sentencing judge in the absence of a detailed report on the background and motivation of an offender, and their potential to be rehabilitated in future. In not requiring such a report, which covers all the matters mentioned in this amendment, Parliament would be taking a retrograde step and excluding elements that may be important in determining the length of any sentence or extension period.

The amendment complements Amendment 6 that I introduced earlier, by giving the judge not only increased discretion in passing sentence, but also the material on which he can correctly and sensibly exercise that discretion. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who described such a report as a very healthy safeguard. I urge the Government to accept the amendment for that reason. It is a question of giving the sentencing court the material upon which to make an informed and sensible decision from everybody’s point of view.

Finally, I commend the words in the amendment that provide for a review of the workings of the clause, including the amendment. I fear that we are legislating in some haste in relation to the Bill, and a review of how it is working, particularly this clause, would be extremely helpful.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing this amendment, although I hope to persuade him that it is in fact misconceived.

The amendment deals with Clause 16, which relates to an increase in the extension period for terrorism offenders aged under 18. As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton said a few moments ago, I am sure it is common ground across the Committee that when dealing with such young adults one has to have the greatest care and consideration. Having said that, as my noble friend Lord Robathan reminded us, this is a matter of public safety. I respectfully endorse nearly all the comments that he made; I say “nearly all” because, in a debate where so many lawyers are speaking, I understand the temptation for someone who is not a lawyer to say that they are “only a layman”, but my noble friend is not “only” anything. With that slight quibble, I respectfully take on board everything that he said.

The amendment would require the pre-sentence report to take account of the offender’s age and consider whether options other than an extension period of eight to 10 years might be more suitable than an extended sentence of detention. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the effectiveness of increasing the maximum extension period of the extended sentence of detention from eight to 10 years.

The nature of an extended sentence is that it comprises a custodial term and an extension period for the purposes of public protection, as defined in Section 256 of the Sentencing Code. The effect of the amendment would be fundamentally to alter the nature of the sentence by proposing an alternative to that extension period.

The amendment is also not necessary and, I say with respect, perhaps misunderstands the provision. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the clause simply provides for a new maximum licence period of 10 years in serious terrorism cases rather than the current eight. This is not mandatory; it is available for use at the court’s discretion, and it will remain possible to apply a licence period of any length between 12 months and 10 years.

For a youth offender to receive an extended sentence for a serious terrorism offence, the court will be required to consider a pre-sentence report. I therefore agree to that extent with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the utility of such reports. In preparing the pre-sentence report, the youth offending team officer will always consider the offender’s age and circumstances in order to recommend an appropriate sentence. The Bill does not change the way in which pre-sentence reports are done.

However, time spent on licence is crucial for both monitoring and managing offenders in the community as well as giving them the opportunity to change their behaviour. Therefore, providing the courts with the option of imposing a longer period of supervision on licence for the most serious terrorist offenders is an important element and component of the Government’s efforts to protect the public from the risks that terrorist offenders pose while enabling a longer period to support rehabilitation.

In that context, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I am not in the business of throwing red meat to anyone or anything, be it dangerous dogs or the tabloids. This, however, is a proper and proportionate response to the very significant danger that some offenders present. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to withdraw the amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so I call him.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments. Yesterday, in debating the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government declined to include child offenders in the definition of “domestic abuse” because, as the Minister said, the Government did not want to criminalise children. In this Bill, however, they seem to be taking a hard line when it comes to child offenders. What is the difference in approach? Is it because the Government think that domestic abuse is not a serious offence where the public need to be protected but terrorism is?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 22 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 23: Terrorism sentence with fixed licence period: Scotland

Amendment 8

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 26 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 10

Moved by