Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 320 and the consequential Amendment 328 are—slightly surprisingly—in this group. Together, they would finally repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes homelessness a criminal offence.

I am grateful to the homelessness charity Crisis for devising these well-crafted amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for adding their names to these amendments. They join the long list of distinguished parliamentarians, including William Wilberforce in the 1820s and Winston Churchill in the 1930s, who have opposed this objectionable legislation. Indeed, last month the Prime Minister himself spoke out, saying:

“No one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live, and I think the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 752.]


Since there can be no objection from the Treasury, as there is no expenditure involved, it seems, therefore, that the moment has arrived. After almost 200 years, the antiquated and misguided Vagrancy Act can at last be laid to rest.

Certainly, the importance of repealing the Act remains, although I will not repeat my Second Reading speech on this theme. Suffice to say, punishing people for being homeless is entirely the wrong approach. Fining people up to £1,000 for sleeping rough or begging and giving them a criminal record is surely a travesty, making their recovery and reintegration into society more difficult than ever. It inhibits the referral of those sleeping rough to the community and social services that can help them, and as long as being homeless is itself a criminal offence, homeless people are deterred from engaging with the law when they are the victims of dreadful violence and abuse, as they so often are.

I note that rough sleepers are 17 times more likely to be victims of crime than the rest of us. Among the examples provided by Crisis, I note the quote from a man in Oxford, who said that

“in my nine years on and off the street, I was violently attacked, shouted at and even urinated on by total strangers. Enduring this abuse was hard enough—I didn’t expect the law to hold my very existence against me.”

Other case studies from Crisis demonstrate just how counterproductive the Act is in blocking the chance for agencies to help and instead penalising and fining those least able to pay.

However, it is now clear that, to the highest levels of government, Ministers have accepted the case for repeal. Nevertheless, in case there are any lingering doubts or hesitations, perhaps I could offer some observations on possible objections to these amendments.

First, securing this repeal has been inhibited to date by the problem of finding the parliamentary time for the Government to do what they want to. Clearly, this obstacle is behind us now that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill provides the opportunity for this to be expedited right away. Indeed, it would absorb far more parliamentary time if the Government were to prepare a fresh Bill to be taken through its 10 stages in the two Houses. It would also take more time if the Government turned down the opportunity before us and required these amendments to go to a vote, with all the extra toing and froing that this would entail. Missing this moment now would surely mean a long, frustrating and pointless wait for the next legislative opportunity, which might be years away.

Secondly, there is the objection that the amendments themselves need revising. The Minister raised such an objection at Second Reading: she noted the devolution implication, given that it extends to Wales. This is an important point and has now been the subject of discussion with the key people in Wales. Welsh Government Ministers have themselves advocated a repeal, and the Ministry of Justice has now been notified that the Welsh Government have indicated their full support for the amendments to apply to Wales as well as England. The necessary legislative consent Motion from the Senedd is scheduled once further amendments are made to the Bill. A tweak to the amendments before us has been prepared to embrace this Welsh dimension, and this can be brought forward, I hope with government approval, on Report. The devolution issue here is one of extra support from Wales. I add that the Vagrancy Act has already been successfully repealed in Scotland.

Thirdly, it might be argued that there are still parts of the original legislation covering aggressive begging and anti-social behaviour which need to be preserved, complicating any repeal of the Act. However, this line of argument ignores the far more extensive powers now available under other legislation, notably the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will draw attention.

There are compelling arguments for the police to use these powers very sparingly in so far as they embrace homeless people, but it cannot be said that the necessary powers do not exist. To support necessary action by front-line police, Amendment 320 includes the totally non-contentious but none the less valuable subsidiary provision for updated guidance on the 2014 Act to be disseminated, promoting the preventive approach now adopted by most police forces.

Fourthly, it is said that it is not worth bothering with repeal of the Vagrancy Act since the number of people charged under it has been declining. However, the Act is still used as a fallback, even though other, more appropriate measures are available. Under pressure from local members of the public, the Act is still deployed.

Moreover, the symbolism in this repeal should not be underestimated; it demonstrates a more enlightened understanding of homelessness. The Government could be rightly proud of making this symbolic gesture alongside their good work in responding to homelessness in the pandemic with their Everyone In initiative; their support for the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, Bob Blackman MP’s Private Member’s Bill, which I had the honour of taking through your Lordships’ House; and their excellent funding for the Housing First projects.

The Government have the laudable objective of ending homelessness by 2024. Removing the barrier of the Vagrancy Act that still hangs over homelessness policy must be an essential step in this direction. I hope the Minister will agree that there really are no arguments for further delay. It has been over three years since the Government committed to look again at this issue and no difficulties have been uncovered. It is almost 200 years since this controversial measure was enacted; let us not kick the can any further down the road. At last, here and now, we have the opportunity to get this done.

I would be delighted to meet Ministers to discuss any further tweaks that could improve these amendments before Report, an offer I am sure goes for the other noble Lords supporting these amendments. Because of the way amendments have been grouped today, I will not be invited to sum up the position after the Minister’s response, so perhaps I can be clear now that I intend to take these amendments to a vote on Report if we are unable to agree a form of words to repeal the 1824 Act. However, I hope it will not come to this and I eagerly anticipate the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, first, I will say a brief word on Amendment 292J, proposed by noble Lords on the Public Services Committee, on which I and my noble friend Lady Wyld also serve. It backs one of the recommendations made in last week’s report and I support the case being made. Indeed, on 25 October, I tabled an amendment with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to help exactly the same group as mentioned in this amendment, namely children at risk of domestic violence and criminal exploitation. In that amendment, I argued for them to be given housing priority, so I hope the Minister will reply sympathetically to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others.

I have added my name to Amendment 328, which is consequential to Amendment 320, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I add a brief footnote to what he said, in support of the campaign which he has long championed. On 23 April 2020, in an Oral Question about the Vagrancy Act 1824, I asked the Minister if he agreed that

“attitudes to those who sleep rough have softened over the past 200 years and that legislation which refers to ‘idle and disorderly’, ‘rogues’ and ‘vagabonds’ living in ‘coach-houses’ and ‘stables’ has no place in modern legislation”.

Later in that exchange, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, weighed in, saying:

“If Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, which was enacted after repeated harvest failures created an army of the dispossessed, were presented to us today, beyond the archaic language to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already referred, we should reject it as being vague and uncertain, and arguably tarnished with an improper reverse burden of proof.”—[Official Report, 23/4/20; col. 84.]


We have heard the Prime Minister’s words on this. The former Secretary of State at the then MHCLG said that, in his opinion, the Vagrancy Act, whose short title is

“An Act for the Punishment of idle and disorderly Persons, and Rogues and Vagabonds, in England”,


should be repealed. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, here we have an amendment that would deliver government policy. At Second Reading, the Minister said she was sure the House would hold her to account on her assurance that she was on the case—so here we are.

This is not the first attempt at repeal. On 17 August 1911, Sir William Byles asked the Home Secretary

“whether the new Recorder of Liverpool, Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., has just sentenced a young man, Edward Gillibanks, to twenty-five strokes with the birch, in addition to twelve months’ hard labour, for being an incorrigible rogue; and whether, in view of the effect of this form of punishment, he will consider the desirability of proposing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act”.

The Home Secretary, one Mr Churchill, replied:

“I cannot say that I think the punishment inflicted on him supplies an argument for repealing the Vagrancy Act.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/8/1911; cols. 2103-04.]


Let us hope we fare a little better today.

It is now common ground that the Act does nothing to resolve or tackle the causes of homelessness. On the contrary, by directing rough sleepers down the criminal justice route, it risks isolating them from the very sources of help now generously provided by the Government, which can help them to rebuild their lives.

The right approach is set out in the thoughtful and comprehensive approach of Westminster City Council, detailed in its rough sleeping strategy, which outlines how rough sleeping can be sensitively handled in a borough to which the magnetism of the capital attracts so many. Every rough sleeper is offered a personalised and sustainable route away from the streets, based on their circumstances. The council has remodelled its services to accept women, who make up some 17% of rough sleepers, and can accommodate women who will not be parted from their dogs.

Westminster also makes it clear that it needs powers to deal with those who behave aggressively or anti-socially. The amendment contains the necessary provisions and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst will refer to other provisions on the statute book to deal with unacceptable behaviour. We have the perfect vehicle to bring our legislation up to date. I hope we are pushing at an open door and I look forward to the Minister’s gracious speech of acceptance.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I give the support of our Benches to Amendments 320 and the consequential amendment, Amendment 328, to which I have put my name. We also support Amendments 292H and 292J. I ask for the indulgence of the Committee in allowing me to speak now, as I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I am also very conscious that time is short for the weighty matters that we are trying to achieve today, so I will try to be succinct in covering what should have been two separate interventions.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, has summed up only too well why the Vagrancy Act 1824 should be repealed, so noble Lords will be relieved to know that I will not repeat his arguments. That we still criminalise homelessness in 2021 is a stain on our societal conscience. Some 200 years ago, starving children were imprisoned for stealing bread, people hanged for petty theft and poverty was attributed—this is the key point—to individual fecklessness. The fact that vagrancy remains a crime is an anachronistic throwback to those times and repeal is long overdue.

Having dealt with several police chiefs in my 16 years as a directly elected mayor, I know that the very fact that begging and homelessness were in themselves crimes evoked different attitudes in different offices, in both the council and the police. This resulted in conflicting approaches to how we should work and how effective we were. We had to work together and go on a journey to find a truly multiagency approach. On that journey, we had to challenge some very firmly held views on the stereotypes of homelessness and what we believed might work. Repealing this Act would change this culture and ensure consistency of approach towards the homeless.

A concern that one might have in agreeing to the amendment is whether the police would feel that they would be unable to deal with some of the genuine issues that occur—I know because we have used some of these tools. When an area has a significant number of homeless people in the community, would they feel a loss of some powers? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will expand on that. From my experience, I know that there are plenty of other arrows in the antisocial behaviour quiver to deal with such issues. Thus, we hope that the Government will give serious consideration to our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Was the former Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, speaking on behalf of the Government when he said that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

When I voiced my support for something needing to be done about the Vagrancy Act, there was a general acknowledgement that something needs to be done about it. I extend the invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Best—and, indeed, to my noble friend as well if he so wishes—because it would be an important discussion ahead of the next stage. What I was trying to say in my rather long-winded explanation is that there are some complex things in the Vagrancy Act that need to be unpicked and understood, with consideration of the legislation on the back of that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

26: Clause 7, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Specified authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when performing their duties under this section.”

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is grouped with a number of other amendments giving priority for housing for those at risk. As I said at Second Reading, I very much welcome this Bill, particularly Part 2. I gave notice then that I would be tabling some housing-related amendments to make the Bill even better. I am grateful to Stella Creasy in another place, who has championed the cause of young people at risk and whose office has given me some very helping briefings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and I are job-sharing on this group. She will speak to Amendment 51, the principal amendment. In a nutshell, it seeks to specify in law what the Government say is happening anyway and should indeed be happening if best practice is to become universal in this highly sensitive area of gang violence, child exploitation and abuse.

Basically, the amendment would put children at risk in the same category for priority housing as families fleeing domestic violence—a measure introduced in the Bill as a result of pressure from, among others, my noble friend Lady Bertin. It would ensure that, instead of being forced to gather extensive evidence and demonstrate unique vulnerability—not easy if your life is under threat—such people were given priority for urgent moves. This would be automatic.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will develop the case. I will confine my brief remarks to the other amendments in this group. Part 2 of the Bill outlines duties to collaborate to prevent serious violence. These amendments would ensure that housing authorities and registered social landlords were included in this new duty, and that there is timely information sharing between the police and housing authorities for the purpose of preventing serious violence. Any effective multiagency response must include housing; including housing in the Bill will support a comprehensive public health approach to tackling and preventing serious youth violence. Education, prison and youth custody authorities are listed in this part of the Bill but housing is not, despite the Explanatory Notes on this section of the Bill saying this on page 13:

“The Strategy explained that the Government’s approach was not solely focused on law enforcement, but depended on partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth services and victim services.”


These amendments complement those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others involving the NHS and children’s social care, which we will come to in a moment.

Amendments 26, 29, 31, 38 to 40 and 44 would amend Clauses 7, 8 and 9. They would require the strategy for a local government area, as well as the related powers to collaborate and identify kinds of violence, to include housing authorities so that they are fully consulted as the strategy is drawn up and the actions they need to take are specified. The Minister may argue that, although the Bill specifies who must be involved in the plan—education, prison and youth custody authorities—it does not preclude others from being involved. However, as far as I can see, the Bill does not say that; it implies exclusivity to the three nominated authorities. Without Amendment 38, for example, housing authorities would not have to carry out their role in any plan to reduce violence.

Of the last amendments, Amendment 62 would require housing authorities to disclose relevant information, which they are not required to do at the moment. This is necessary. One serious review case study said that there was

“little evidence of the Housing Service being closely tied into the operational work of the Safeguarding Partnership. As a consequence information that was only known to the Housing Service took time to percolate to the other partners, while the implications of the housing stress under which Child C’s family was placed were not discussed in a multi-agency forum.”

Much of the violence that young people are at risk from is location-based, such as a gang on a particular estate. Housing providers may have an insight into this in a way that others do not. Without Amendment 62, that risk would persist; Amendments 66, 69 and 70 cover the same points.

These amendments would ensure that government policy is effectively delivered by ensuring that housing authorities are included in the Bill as key partners in protecting young people against gang violence. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to which I have added my name. I too pay tribute to Stella Creasy in the other place for her commitment and great foresight, as well as for the support of her team.

As we have heard, the purpose of this chapter is to prevent and reduce serious violence by requiring public authorities to co-operate and develop strategies for tackling this issue. The Government tell us that their aim is to build a public health approach to the reduction of serious violence. That aim is welcome only if we can put in place the right tools to achieve it. What we will keep coming back to throughout today’s debates is that a public health approach works only when it is genuinely focused on prevention and early intervention, and is properly invested in. If not, we will continue simply to treat the symptoms of serious violence, not its causes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Certainly, I completely concur with the noble Baroness and there will be ample opportunity to look at the draft guidance as well.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, beginning with my co-pilot, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, who made the point that this is all about prevention and early intervention, and housing is absolutely crucial if we are to achieve that. She mentioned the broad support for this group of amendments from organisations such as Shelter and Crisis and made the point that this is simply building on existing provisions and extending what is already the case for domestic violence to gang-related violence—I will come back to that point in a moment. The thrust of the amendment to which she spoke was to embed best practice in statutory guidance; she mentioned the tragic case of the child Chris.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who referred to the work of Mr Houlder on knife crime—the scourge of many housing estates—and also referred to the Edlington case, which he mentioned in an earlier debate. That underlined the point that there can sometimes be fatal consequences if there is inadequate consultation between the housing authorities and police authorities—a point that was underlined later in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support; she made the point that there is a potential resource implication behind these amendments if they are to be fully effective. Again, the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as a police and crime commissioner was of real value to the debate; he emphasised the importance of strengthening the link between housing and the police.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who expressed concern that the Bill was too focused on a police-led initiative. The impact of these amendments will be to broaden the base by including housing; other amendments later on will also help broaden the base. He was anxious that this should not be entirely police-led.

I am grateful to the Minister for a thoughtful, sympathetic and comprehensive response to the debate, informed by her experience as a council leader in the north-west but also by her time as a Minister in what was then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—he said with some hesitation. She made the point that she expected housing authorities to participate—they were well placed to do so—and referred on many occasions to statutory guidance. The concern that I have, and some other noble Lords may have, is that there is a gap between statutory guidance and what actually happens on the ground; hence the case for legislation to make it clear that this is not just guidance, there is an obligation so to do.

I recall listening to exactly the same arguments we have heard this evening in resisting what became the Domestic Abuse Act, which gave a statutory right to be rehoused to those suffering from domestic violence. Previously, the argument was, “There are adequate powers for local authorities to do this under the housing legislation.” However, we have now taken the step forward and put it in the Domestic Abuse Act, and this will build on that precedent and extend it to gang violence. I am concerned by the gap between theory and practice, and this would embed best practice in legislation.

Having said that, as I said, my noble friend gave a thorough response which I want to reflect on, together with the contributions of other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and be the first to congratulate him on his maiden speech. As he said, he is better known outside as Guy Mansfield QC—an outstanding barrister—and there was a rustle of silk from his learned friends as they came into the Chamber to hear him.

As my noble friend said, he is a former chairman of the Bar Council and a deputy High Court judge. As head of research at the Society of Conservative Lawyers, he has campaigned for better provision of legal aid in the civil and family courts, writing that

“every man is equal before the law, but he has got to get before the law before he can attain that equality.”

He is also a prominent member of Justice, the human rights charity, focusing on those who have been marginalised by society. Of particular interest to your Lordships are his recent papers on the inadequacy of the Government’s drafting of Covid regulations and the oral evidence he gave to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee on access to personal data—both relevant to the Bill before us.

I first encountered my noble friend’s powers of advocacy during the 2019 general election, when we were both canvassing on the pavements of Putney. As it happened, that was one of two seats which my party lost—but entirely my fault and not his. Those powers of persuasion will now be put to use in the calmer atmosphere of your Lordships’ House, where his professional skills will help us improve this Bill and others. He is warmly welcomed, and I hope he will defend me against the Whips if my speech now lasts more than five minutes.

I want to intervene briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Best, who will table an amendment to repeal the Vagrancy Act, and my noble friend Lady Bertin, who will table an amendment on domestic violence and access to housing. I make a related plea in support of Stella Creasy’s campaign on behalf of children subjected to gang-related violence.

Eighteen months ago, during Oral Questions, I asked about the Vagrancy Act, making the point:

“It has the unfortunate consequence of criminalising rough sleepers, by bringing them before the courts. This isolates them from the support that the Government are funding through housing and employment. As it approaches its bicentenary, should this Act not be repealed?”.—[Official Report, 23/1/20; col. 1152.]


I raised the matter again in April, pointing out that attitudes to those who sleep rough have softened over the last 200 years, and that provisions that refer to “idle and disorderly” “rogues” and “vagabonds” living in “coach-houses” and “stables” have no place in modern legislation. The Government’s review of the Act was commissioned in August 2018 and was meant to be concluded by March of last year. When I asked about progress last April, the answer, in a phrase often used at the Dispatch Box, was “in due course”. But given the statement by the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, repeal should not now be controversial, accompanied by amendments if necessary to give the police and others the powers they actually need to deal with vagrancy and aggressive behaviour. I hope that when she winds up, the Minister can say that an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, will have government support.

On domestic violence and access to housing, again, I hope we are pushing at an open door. Along with other noble Lords, last Thursday I tuned in to a webinar hosted by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, with contributions from the police and crime commissioner from Nottingham, the deputy mayor in London and a courageous victim of domestic abuse who is now a police officer. What struck me in coming relatively new to this subject was, first, the unanimous praise for the action the Government have already taken in this field with legislation, with the 2018 Serious Violence Strategy and with the introduction of violence reduction units; and, secondly, the narrowness of the gap between what is already in legislation and the amendment to be tabled by my noble friend.

While the Government want flexibility of local response, the reformers want a clear statement of priorities through a small but important extension of the definition of domestic abuse. As I understand it, where the guidance says “could consider”, we want “must consider”. Is it worth sacrificing the good will and progress already made by falling out over this, particularly as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner told us that the Policing Minister is supportive?

In passing, I was concerned to hear that women’s refuges refuse to take boys over 10, meaning that one family had to return to the home of the perpetrator, and that the pattern of domestic violence is changing, with a growing number of assaults by children on adults.

Finally, I say a quick word on behalf of Stella Creasy’s campaign. Too many young people, including children as young as 14, are being murdered as a result of being groomed by criminal gangs in their neighbourhood. The common factor in these cases is the need for families, or in some cases just young people on their own, to be urgently moved to a suitable place, remote from the gang activity. But too often the mothers’ desperate pleas are not taken seriously enough. Again, the gap is a narrow one. The Government say these vulnerable people may be able to access priority housing under existing legislation but that they have first to demonstrate further vulnerability, such as a mental health condition. We think that hurdle should be removed, and I hope to add a bauble to this Christmas tree in Committee, further improving what is already an excellent Bill.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as is customary, I make it clear at the start of this debate that I may wish to test the opinion of the House on my amendment, though I say to the Government that if, after reflecting on the debate today and in Committee, they are willing to engage constructively with the issue of data collection and the intention behind this amendment, of course I will withdraw it.

In the last two weeks, women and men across the country have come forward to demand action. In sadness and in anger, there is solidarity. The question before us now is whether we will heed their call for change. Will we take a decision that will help ensure that all women, everywhere, can enjoy the same freedoms as men when it comes to being able to go where we want and do what we want without fear?

Our hearts go out to the family of Sarah Everard. She walked down well-lit streets and she wore bright clothes, yet today we stand here knowing that she was not safe. Since Sarah’s tragic murder came to public attention, women everywhere have shared their stories of harassment, abuse and violence at home and on the streets, and their frustration that all too frequently these crimes are not treated with the seriousness they deserve. This amendment is about how we can change that and, in the process, ensure that every police force in England and Wales learns from the best practice in this area from across the country.

Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum. Hostility towards women and girls generates a culture in which violence and abuse is tolerated, excused and repeated. Gathering evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls and how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse is crucial to recognising these connections. Last week, UN Women released a report which found that, among women aged between 18 and 24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. Critically, 96% of respondents said that they did not report these incidents, with 45% saying it was because it would not change anything. It is not hard to understand why they feel this way.

Rape convictions have been dropping since 2017, and fell to a record low this year: only 1.4% of cases reported resulted in a charge. At least 1,000 fewer men accused of rape are currently being prosecuted than two years ago. A recent report by the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that almost one in three women aged between 16 and 59 will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. More than half a million women are raped or sexually assaulted each year. There are more than 135,000 women and girls affected by FGM living in England and Wales. During the first national lockdown, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline saw an 80% increase in calls, and Karma Nirvana, which supports victims of so-called honour-based abuse and forced marriage, reported a 162% average increase in its case load. We need to explicitly acknowledge this epidemic of violence against women and girls. To do that does not mean we are saying that men are not attacked or abused; it is to recognise that these crimes are disproportionately affecting women.

Some 92% of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions last year were male and 77% of victims were female. When other groups in society are targeted for a fundamental element of their being—the colour of their skin, their religious identity or their sexuality—we rightly say that this should be recognised and addressed. Amendment 87B is about doing the same for sex and gender.

This approach, and treating misogyny as a hate crime, was piloted in Nottinghamshire in 2016, under the leadership of former Chief Constable Sue Fish, who explained:

“Making misogyny a hate crime was one of the simplest tasks I’ve ever done working in the police—and yet the results that we saw were incredible. Some of the feedback we had was that women, for the first time, described themselves as walking taller and with their ‘heads held high’.”


The Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that 36% of hate crime victims said they were “very much affected”, compared with 13% for all crime. The survey also found that gender was perceived to be the motivation for more than half of hate crimes reported by women.

So we women know that we are being targeted, but the police do not. Amendment 87B is about ensuring that all police forces do something which increases the confidence of victims to report crime and helps improve their detection. In areas where misogyny has been included in hate crime reporting, there has been an increase in reporting. As police get better at identifying the motivation behind crimes, women feel more confident in coming forward.

If there is so much to support, why would anyone oppose this? I will take each concern I have heard in turn. First, some will say we should wait for completion of the Law Commission review on hate crime. I welcome that review. It has been running for nearly three years and has called for misogyny to be included in our hate crime rubric; I hope to see its outcome realised in the sentencing Bill. However, we do not have to wait for this review to ask all police forces to follow best practice and start gathering data on where existing crimes are targeted at women. We can take this step now and start benefiting from it now.

Some will say that the police do not have the resources to do everything. One chief constable actually said, “I am questioning whether a criminal offence is the best way of dealing with what is essentially an issue about how we all treat each other.” The women in Nottinghamshire were not reporting men for not opening doors for them or calling them rude names. They were reporting incidents that are crimes—sexual assault, abuse and violence. These crimes need to be recorded so that they can be properly addressed.

In addition, 11 out of the 43 police constabularies in England and Wales are currently recording misogyny as a hate crime, have trialled the policy or are actively considering implementing it—North Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucester and Northamptonshire are some of the forces already putting this into practice. This approach also has the support of the national policing adviser for hate crime and metro mayors Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram, Sadiq Khan and Dan Jarvis, and many police and crime commissioners and multiple councils around the country are passing motions in support.

Some will query the wording of this amendment, which talks about recording crimes that are motivated by sex or gender; this is the wording used by the Law Commission. The issue here should not be whether someone was born a woman or becomes one, but identifying and stopping those who target women, full stop. Indeed, while trans identity is currently protected by hate crime, sex is not. Worded in this way, the amendment ensures that no one can avoid accountability for their behaviour through discriminating or further demeaning the victim.

Some will say, “What about misandry?” Whenever a crime is motivated by hate, it needs to be recorded. But, as we have seen from the data so far, the vast majority of victims coming forward are women. For example, in the first two years in Nottinghamshire, of the 265 misogyny hate crime victims who were recorded, 243 were female and six were male.

Finally, some will rightly worry about this being part of a Bill on domestic violence and the risk of creating a hierarchy of sexual violence or reducing sentences for such crimes. This amendment is not about the sentencing element of recognising misogyny as a hate crime; it is about the data required to identify crimes and the interconnections between violence against women in the home and in the community. It complements the Law Commission’s work but is not dependent on it. It would require the police to report on those connections, rather than denying them or missing them, to the detriment of our policing.

In closing, I acknowledge the wide breadth of support for this proposal and those who have campaigned for it for many years: Citizens UK, Stonewall, Refuge, the Fawcett Society, Tell MAMA, the Jo Cox Foundation, HOPE not hate, Plan UK, Our Streets Now, Centenary Action Group, UN Women UK, the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, JUNO Women’s Aid and Muslim Women’s Network UK. All of them are asking for our support for this amendment today.

Across the country, women everywhere are looking to us not just to express sympathy with their concerns but to act: to stop telling them to stay at home and be careful and start finding those responsible for the violence. If we are not recording crime that is targeted at women, how can we effectively address violence against women and girls and the police’s response to it? What is happening to women of all ages, colours and backgrounds is illegal, but clearly it is not being effectively addressed. Let us take the opportunity to put that right with this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who has made a powerful speech on her amendment, to which I will add a fairly brief footnote.

As she said, over the last few days we have seen growing pressure on the Government to alter the terms of trade, the balance of power, between men and women. The murder of Stephen Lawrence in the 1990s marked a turning point in our attitudes towards race in this country; the murder of Sarah Everard may do the same for attitudes towards women. Other noble Lords may have had telephone calls yesterday from women asking for support for this amendment. Elesa Bryers rang me, asking if she could send me a petition she had started which had some 700 signatures. I readily agreed.

It is crucial for the Government to strike the right balance in response, avoiding a knee-jerk reaction and a headline-grabbing solution that does not stand the test of time but recognising that, after careful analysis, we have to move on from where we are. I can think of few people better placed to help make that judgment than my noble friend the Minister who is replying to this debate.

Turning to the amendment, no one could say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic events of last week, as, of course, the case for it was made last month in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others. I have reread the reply that the Minister gave on that occasion. My noble friend said:

“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.” —[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 59.]


“We do not think it would be appropriate” is not a total rejection of what we were asking for. Indeed, one could argue that the amendment would add significantly to the evidence base that the Minister referred to in her reply, because it would broaden that evidence base beyond the 11 police forces which currently collect the relevant statistics. I wonder whether my noble friend has sought the views of the Law Commission on this amendment as it completes its work.

We know that the domestic abuse commissioner is supportive of the principles behind the amendment and strongly welcomes proposed subsection (2) about issuing guidance. I was pleased to hear in her interview on Friday that the domestic abuse commissioner said she was listened to by the Government, and my noble friend can build on that basis of trust in her response today.

Winding up the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, offered a way forward by suggesting that we should

“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.” —[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 61.]

Perhaps that offers us the way forward today.

Rereading the briefing for this amendment, I was struck by the evidence from Citizens UK and from the organisation HOPE not hate that ideological misogyny is emerging in far-right terrorist movements, and that there has been a growth in online misogynistic abuse. Hate motivated by gender is a factor in a third of all hate crimes, the same briefing tells us—all of which reinforces the case for a fresh look at this issue.

As other noble Lords have said, we need to rebuild confidence in the police. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the case of Nottingham and the survey, where they have already adopted the measures outlined in this amendment, as she said. That survey showed, first, that the problem was taken seriously by the police and, secondly, that what Nottingham did increased public confidence in the police in the county. Adopting this amendment could do the same for the police nationally.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to this amendment, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for the eloquent and detailed way in which she has introduced it.

At Second Reading on 5 January, I mentioned that I would raise the issue of misogyny and probably put forward an amendment in Committee. First, those of your Lordships who, like me, laboured through the Second Reading—there were no less than 90 contributors —were brave, but, secondly, it is interesting to note that, of all the contributors, I think I was the only one to actually mention the dreaded noun “misogyny”. I was not surprised when the Minister, in her summing up of so many contributions, also did not mention misogyny.

We fast forward to Committee, and on 8 February—the fifth day in Committee—I put forward an amendment, ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to all of whom I am extremely grateful. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the Minister basically said, “We can see it is quite a good idea, but we have asked the Law Commission to look at this, and we will wait and see what it recommends”.

Now we fast forward to today—17 March—the fourth day of Report, and Amendment 87B. Harold Wilson once said that one week is a long time in politics. I do not know about the rest of your Lordships, but, for me, the last 10 weeks since Second Reading have felt like a lifetime in politics. But more to the point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said very movingly on Monday, the last 10 weeks have not only seemed like a lifetime, they have also seen the loss of no less than 30 lives—30 women killed by men, whose names she read out on Monday.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who added powerful examples to the already clear and strong examples from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, as to why we should agree both these amendments. I will not detain the House for long, but I want to strongly express the Green group’s support for these two amendments.

The logical way to take them is in the opposite order to that in which they are numbered. Amendment 87C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and with strong cross-party support, expresses the ideal situation which, we have been told, is already being created in Scotland, with even stronger support for victims of domestic abuse. It is for people to stay in their own homes and communities and, very often, for children to stay in the schools that they are used to, with their friends. This is obviously the right thing to do to support victims of domestic abuse and to ensure that abusers do not profit from the situation, as they are often left with the home, tenancy, control and their place in the community.

Amendment 66B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, acknowledges that that is simply not always possible. Victims of domestic abuse, having fled to refuges, may have started to establish themselves in a new place, possibly on the other side of the country, and have started to make friends, and children have become used to schools. The amendments make an excellent package—in this case, the grouping works—to provide a bit more wraparound and support for the victims of domestic abuse, for whom we are all spending so many hours in your Lordships’ House trying to make this the best Bill it can be. These two amendments, or something very like them, are needed to make this the Bill that it should be, so I commend them to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by commending my noble friend Lord Randall for the case he made for Amendment 66B. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that. The case for Amendment 87C was capably made in Committee by a number of noble Lords and reinforced today by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Warwick and Lady Bennett. I will not repeat it, except to gently remind the Minister that in Scotland they have gone further than our modest amendment in giving security to victims of domestic abuse, even when they are not a joint tenant.

I want to focus on what has happened since Committee, and begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his patient and sympathetic approach in seeking to find a way forward. In his wind-up speech in Committee, he recognised that our amendment would simplify the current complex and uncertain legal mechanism available to victims, and would prevent perpetrators from exerting control over a victim. That was enormously helpful.

In our letter dated 15 February, we sought to address the concerns that he expressed on five separate issues. In particular, we amended the section on responsibility for arrears to clarify that the perpetrator remains liable for arrears before the joint tenancy is terminated. Then we added subsection (11) to the new clause proposed by the amendment, to give the Government time to assess progress in Scotland. We had a meeting with my noble friend earlier this month, for which again I am grateful, and he replied to our letter last week, in which he repeated his sympathy for the motives behind the amendment.

So where do we go from here? If there are defects in our drafting, we know that the Bill will go back to the other place, so there will be an opportunity for the Government to tidy it up. My preferred solution would be for the Government to accept the amendment, tidy it up in the other place and implement it as soon as it is successfully rolled out in Scotland.

I would understand the disappointment if the Government were to resist but, if they do, with some reluctance I would consider the more cautious approach suggested in my noble friend’s letter and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in her opening speech—namely consultation. I am not entirely convinced that this is necessary but, subject to some strict conditions—an early start date, a reasonable but not protracted time for consultation and a decision by the Government by the autumn—the proposition is worth reflecting on. The option would be even more attractive if there was also a commitment to include the necessary measures in the first relevant piece of legislation, be it on rights for renters or leasehold reform, both of which are likely to feature in the next Session. I will listen with more than usual attention to my noble friend’s response at the end of this debate, before deciding how best to proceed.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, first, I am happy to add my support to Amendment 66B in this group, from the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I am somewhat mystified as to why it was not included with Amendment 66A, to which I also added my name but was not present in the House at the beginning of the debate to speak to it. I take this opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord and the House for this confusion on my part. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House as to why Amendments 66A and 66B were not dealt with together.

Just as Amendment 66A concerned hard-pressed authorities using their local connection rules to deny refuge places to victims and their families fleeing to another area, Amendment 66B deals with another criterion, “qualified persons” who want more permanent accommodation in their new area. Guidance is not a requirement and guidance is not enough. The case study given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, speaks more eloquently than anything I could say in cogently making this point.

I have also added my name to Amendment 87C on joint tenancies. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained the amendment well, including the human rights implications. I start by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for the lengths that he and his team have gone to in investigating the practicalities of this amendment. I have no doubt of his sympathy for what it seeks to achieve.

The supporters of the amendment, assisted by Women’s Aid lawyers, have further amended our amendments proposed in Committee, in accordance with the points that the Minister made to us subsequently, including liability for debt if the perpetrator is removed from the tenancy, the interests of third parties and the interests and rights of the perpetrator.

In subsequent discussions with us, the Minister said that the Government would like time to assess how the implementation of a plan in Scotland similar to that which we propose will fare. But there are three issues with this. First, the changes in Scotland are not the same; they are much wider ranging than our comparatively modest proposal, so they will not be comparing the same thing. Secondly, property law is different in Scotland, so that will have to be factored in. Thirdly, it could take years before the implementation of the Scottish version is fully assessed. If it is or is not successful, how much will that tell us, given the differences that I outlined in the first and second points? We could potentially lose a huge amount of time for very little gain, given the prospect of a suitable Bill coming as a vehicle to implement it.

More promisingly, the Minister has offered a public consultation to help resolve some of the technical issues that he has raised in meetings and correspondence with us. This would bring interested parties from all sides of the argument to contribute and work together to find a solution fair to all. I am attracted to this idea, because I acknowledge that we are treading in quite a legally complex area, which incorporates several different aspects of the law. He tells us, in his most recent letter, when the consultation will start—this summer—but not when it will end, and he has not indicated any further steps to be taken and when they might take place.

Having been a Member of your Lordships’ House and the other place for over 15 years now, I have watched many times in frustration as consultations drag on for years, eventually for so long that the proposals under question can be forgotten and quietly dropped. So, if this kind offer of consultation is accepted, we would need some assurances on time. For example, an assurance that the Government would strive to have proposals in place in time for the next piece of appropriate legislation—say, for example, the renters Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, reinforced the important role that housing associations and social landlords can play. Could the Minister give the House this assurance today?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for supporting this amendment and making it cross-party. There are few things in the unjust world of domestic abuse that make me more angry than a perpetrator driving the victim and their children out of the family home. This amendment seeks to address this injustice for joint tenancies in a secure or assured tenancy, where the landlord is a local authority or a private registered social landlord—I would make it wider if it were possible under the law as it stands.

As things stand, it is very difficult and costly for a victim in a jointly tenanted home to get the tenancy transferred to them if the perpetrator does not agree. For the purposes of simplicity, I am going to use the pronoun “he” for the perpetrator and “she” for the victim, but of course there are circumstances where it is the other way round. They could also be a same-sex couple.

Until the perpetrator’s name can be removed from the tenancy agreement, the victim will never achieve the security she needs. She cannot change the locks or restrict his access. She can seek a temporary court order to remove him from the property but when that expires, he has the right to return. The perpetrator can give notice to end the tenancy without the survivor’s consent or even knowledge, even though he no longer resides there. Unless he signs away his interest in the tenancy, her only recourse as things stand is to embark on costly court proceedings, which are complex and tortuous. Social housing providers, much as they might wish, have no legal mechanism to evict perpetrators and support survivors to stay in the tenancy. A number of creative methods have been tried, but these use legal mechanisms for which they were not designed.

For all those reasons, all too often the victim ends up fleeing the family home, leaving the perpetrator ensconced while she ends up homeless, often in a refuge with no resources to enable her to start again except emergency assistance from the state. It makes my blood boil even thinking about it.

This new clause aims to resolve the problem, at least as far as secured and assured social tenancies are concerned. Three family law and housing experts, Giles Peaker, Justin Bates and Jenny Beck, developed the solution which I am proud to lay before the Committee today. It provides a simplified mechanism for transferring a joint tenancy into the hands of the victim as a sole tenancy. It utilises other mechanisms in the Bill, domestic abuse protection orders and notices, as well as existing mechanisms such as restraining orders, occupation orders and non-molestation orders, which can remove the perpetrator from the home temporarily. The breathing space created when the perpetrator is out of the home can be used to transfer the tenancy permanently to the victim, so when the order expires, he is no longer legally able to return.

Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause describes the conditions under which a domestic abuse transfer of tenancy order can be granted by the court. The new sole tenant must be able to afford the rent or have expectations of being able to do so in a reasonable amount of time. The court must make the order if the perpetrator is subsequently convicted of domestic abuse. It may make an order if a domestic abuse protection order or notice, injunction or restraining order has been issued. Even if none of these conditions applies, or the victim has already fled the property, the court may still make the order. If the perpetrator does not object to the order the court must make the order. If he objects, the onus is on him to make the case that there are exceptional circumstances why he should stay.

That is the gist of it. No doubt other noble Lords will have points to make which are more learned and informed than someone with no legal training like me, but I must say that it looks to me like an elegant and equitable solution. No doubt the Minister may have some legal reservations, but all I ask at this stage is for him to take it away, think about it and come back at Report—with, I hope, an even more elegant solution of the Government’s making. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which now has support from all four corners of the House. I add a brief footnote to the compelling case just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. This is a rather modest amendment, as it covers only the transfer of a tenancy where the victim is a joint tenant. A more radical but perfectly defensible amendment would have proposed the transfer of the tenancy where the perpetrator was the sole tenant and the victim was living lawfully in the property as a spouse or partner, but not as a joint tenant. I should have been happy to sponsor such an amendment—with adequate safeguards, of course.

Once again, we find that Scotland has stolen a march on England with its amendment to its domestic abuse Bill. That amendment enables either the social landlord or the survivor/tenant to do just what I have said: to seek a transfer of tenancy through a court order. It can transfer a sole tenancy in the perpetrator’s name into a sole tenancy in the survivor’s name. Our amendment is more modest and proposes that the survivor can apply for a transfer of tenancy through the county court only if it is a joint secured or assured social tenancy, shared with the perpetrator. Of course, in those circumstances, the tenant is already known to and approved by the landlord.

The amendment is one of the domestic abuse commissioner’s top recommendations. At a round table last month with the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs, there was unanimous support for this initiative. Since the A New Deal for Renting consultation in 2019, the organisation Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, to which I am grateful for its briefing, has regularly met the department about joint tenancies and discussed the amendment. The organisation has sought to address the concerns expressed in the letter that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, sent to us, which stated that

“there are good practical and principled reasons for the rules which seek to balance the rights and interests of each tenant and the landlord.”

I shall quickly go through those rights and interests. Those of the social landlord would be basically unchanged because the nature of the tenancy agreement would stay the same. The rights of the tenant-survivor would also stay the same by their retaining the right to continue to live safely in their home. The rights of the perpetrator would, of course, be affected, and I agree that we should be cautious about making anyone homeless. However, in the circumstances to which the Bill applies, we have to strike a balance. If the perpetrator leaves, he may indeed face homelessness, probably as a single person. But if he does not, the innocent party and any children would also face either homelessness or continuing harm by staying put.

The amendment provides that where there is such a dispute and this balance has to be struck, the matter should be resolved by the county courts, which would hear both sides of the case before reaching a judgment. If a perpetrator loses but remains in the property, the normal eviction process would take place. However, in many cases, he may already have left due to a domestic abuse protection order, a restraining order or an occupation order, or he may have done so voluntarily. Under the amendment, the courts would have to define affordability, but this is something they already do, and it would be based on the survivor’s income and access to benefits to cover the rent.

There are further injustices in the present position, which were touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. At the moment, the perpetrator can leave the property and then unilaterally end the joint tenancy. That cannot be right. He can stop the survivor accessing housing benefit because his income is taken into account, but he will not be paying. As we have heard, the survivor cannot change the locks without the perpetrator’s consent. Without the amendment, if the perpetrator does not leave, the survivor has to resort to costly legal proceedings. That cannot be right, either, because it can take up to two years to complete the process and, depending on legal aid, can cost up to £10,000.

I therefore hope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has just said, that the Minister will listen sympathetically to the case made this afternoon and indicate that there is some flexibility in the position that the Government have adopted so far.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I felt initially that in Amendment 1 it was necessary and sensible to have the term “reasonable belief” in the Bill, but the inconsistency with RIPA 2000, the Solicitor-General’s statement in the other place and the changes that have been made to some of the paragraphs have now persuaded me that it is not necessary.

I view Amendment 2 in a much more serious light. We should be proud of the fact that our nation is at last putting our covert human intelligence agents’ behaviour on a statutory basis. We must not lose sight of the fact that agents save lives. In working undercover, CHIS need to be trusted by those on whom they are reporting. Put simply, if they are to be believed to be a gang member, they need to act like one. If they do not, it is no exaggeration at all to say that they could be killed. My experience in Northern Ireland certainly backs that up. Their handlers must be able to authorise them to break the law in certain circumstances and subject to specific safeguards. These safeguards have been strengthened by the work of this House, and we should be proud of that.

It will not help anyone if we put checklists of offences on the face of the Bill—nothing at all would be gained by that. The safety of CHIS should be central to the decisions of this House. We must not forget that they are very important individuals who are doing important things for us. I am afraid that this amendment also ignores that fact. Drawing parallels with the United States and Australia is dangerous and totally irrelevant. If there is a Division on the amendment, I will vote with the Government on this issue.

The Government have been somewhat vague about why they have opposed Lords Amendment 3 on the issue of criminal compensation but have now brought forward their own Amendment 3B, which shows that they have absolutely understood its necessity. The point was well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I am happy to support government Amendment 3B. It meets the concerns of the House and provides assurances on the matter in the Bill, which is good.

On Amendment 4, I have thought long and hard about the use of adolescents. When one heard about this initially, one was taken aback, but I have come to realise that, to some extent, the concern about juveniles in relation to the Bill is due to the conflation of the broader question of whether under-18s should be used as CHIS at all. That of course is not the matter at hand that we are discussing, rather it is the narrower issue of whether those involved should be able to participate in criminality and with what safeguards, which is what the Bill addresses. On those CHIS below the age of 16, I now believe that, in very exceptional circumstances, we should use them. The government amendments will put appropriate safeguards in place which will ensure that that can be done with maximum gain and minimum risk.

The other place quite rightly accepted the core element of Lords Amendment 5, which requires all CCAs to be notified to judicial commissioners as soon as possible, and within seven days of being granted. The Government have come back with Amendment 5A, which would require any such activity to stop immediately, except where the judicial commissioner had allowed specific activities to continue for the purpose of discontinuing the authorisation, and they have of course amended the code of practice.

In the other place, the Solicitor-General said:

“On the extremely rare occasions where a judicial commissioner may find issue with an authorisation, the public authority will consult with the commissioner and may indeed stop, or not commence, the activity that they planned to commence. However, this should not be at the expense of the safety of the CHIS.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/21; cols. 428-29.]


This final sentence is compelling for me. To take a hypothetical example, if MI5 authorised activity that was considered essential to the maintenance of a CHIS’s cover, requiring this activity to stop immediately could very well blow that cover and put their safety at risk. As I have said a number of times, the safety of CHIS has been central to the way this House has considered the Bill, and that is important.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, appreciated that fact, and his Amendment 5B would not require activity to cease immediately. However, I cannot support his amendment as I believe—indeed, I know—that the notification of prosecuting authorities will cause real problems from a practical and operational point of view, particularly for the agencies and their ability to run CHIS.

In summary, I believe the House should be proud of what it has done on the Bill by putting it on a statutory basis. Anything in this area is always unpleasant, but I believe that the Bill is necessary and a useful piece of legislation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 4, which deals with juveniles and vulnerable adults, and the government amendments to that part of the Bill. The background to this is the debate we had on 13 January, when a group of amendments, led by Amendment 12 in my name, sought to remove children aged under 18 and vulnerable adults from the Bill’s scope entirely. While this secured support from all sides of the House, it was clear that without support from the Official Opposition it was doomed. Therefore, I withdrew it.

The House then coalesced around Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whose impact on this debate has been substantial. I pay tribute to that. I also supported her amendment, although it did not go quite as far as Amendment 12. Her amendment trumped government Amendment 26 in the same group by offering additional safeguards. Although the Government described these as unworkable, the House supported Amendment 24 in a Division by 339 to 235. As we heard, this was rejected in another place and we now have the government amendments we debate today.

My view, which is shared by the Children’s Commissioner, is unchanged—namely, that we should exempt children and vulnerable adults—but I accept that that will not happen. What we now have is a welcome improvement on government Amendment 26, and I am grateful to my noble friend for listening to the concerns and meeting them where she felt she could. I also pay tribute to the work of Stella Creasy in taking the debate forward.

Some relevant questions on the government amendments have been raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Kidron. I hope my noble friend will feel able to continue the dialogue once the Bill reaches the statute book, to focus again on the code of practice, in particular to consider extending the protections in the Bill to all children used as CHIS, not just those authorised to commit criminal conduct, and to reconsider the issue of appropriate adults for those aged under 18. In the meantime, I am happy to support the government amendments.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I will also speak very briefly to Motion D. I thank all noble Lords who have been part of a chorus of voices speaking on behalf of children, young people and vulnerable adults. It is very good news that their voices have been heard.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, who first tabled the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, then took on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, because the initiative he brought forward to have greater involvement by IPCO has been and is extremely welcome. Stella Creasy has probably got enough plaudits without needing any more; it will doubtless go to her head. I thank the charity Just for Kids Law, which has been very active, helpful and constructive in realising what is and is not realistic.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked all the questions that I would have asked, and probably rather better than I would have. I am sure the Minister will deal with them when she comes to respond. I quickly looked up whether a flock of Bishops is the right collective noun. It is actually a Bench of Bishops or a sea of Bishops, but unfortunately we do not have any with us today.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 89 to indicate broad, cross-party support for this group, which seeks to ensure that the Government’s statutory duty works effectively for this invaluable network of refuge services.

I welcome Part 4, which we have now moved on to, which is only four pages but a key part of this progressive piece of legislation that is going to drive up standards of provision for this vital service. Can I add a brief footnote to the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Woolley? Like them, I am grateful to Women’s Aid for its input into this group.

The key criticism we have heard so far has been that the Bill does not define either relevant accommodation or domestic abuse support. Looking at the Bill, “relevant accommodation” is going to be

“specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.”

For domestic abuse support, the definition is rather circular:

“‘domestic abuse support’ means support, in relation to domestic abuse”.

The thrust of these amendments is to try and focus on exactly what sort of accommodation and services should be provided under Part 4. Without this clarity, there is a risk that councils will fund generic, and sometimes inappropriate, accommodation-based services. As we have just heard, these do not have the expertise necessary to provide the comprehensive range of services needed for families escaping domestic abuse. That is why proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f) in Amendment 89 refer to “refuge services” rather than just refuges.

There is concern that, as currently drafted—in addition to the risks mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser —the Bill could lead to unsafe forms of accommodation that are not designed to meet survivors’ needs being funded under the duty. The Women’s Aid movement has seen landlords using the exempt provisions of housing benefit to access higher rent levels, and providing accommodation which is frankly unsafe. The amendments seek to provide a tighter definition of relevant accommodation to reduce the risk of abuse.

The definition should clarify that a refuge address should never be publicly available or disclosed. That would resolve the challenges that one of the Women’s Aid members is currently facing, with High Court orders threatening to disclose the address of a refuge. Perhaps my noble friend could respond to that point.

Refuge services are developing into a national network of services, supporting survivors who often need to flee from their local area to be safe from an abuser. The data shows that over two-thirds of women resident in refuges are from a different local authority area. That leads to the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, about national oversight. Without changes to the statutory duty to improve national oversight, we may be putting too much emphasis on local authorities to provide what should be an effective national service.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

12: Clause 1, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) A criminal conduct authorisation may not be granted to a covert human intelligence source under the age of 18.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prohibit the granting of criminal conduct authorisations to children.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, which seeks to prohibit the granting of criminal conduct authorisations to children, I wish to speak to Amendment 13, which does the same for vulnerable adults and victims of trafficking. These amendments build on proposals from me and other noble Lords in Committee. I will then say a brief word about Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to which I have added my name. It does not offer all the protection of my amendments, but it is a useful advance on where we are at the moment and may provide the basis for consensus. The arguments for Amendments 12 and 13 apply with equal force to Amendment 24.

Let me begin by thanking Ministers for the extensive discussions between Committee and Report, and for facilitating a presentation by those in the Met Police who are at the operational end of the policy and a briefing with IPCO. Both were helpful in getting an insight into the reasons for using underage CHIS and the way the regime is supervised. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for recognising the concerns expressed by me and others in Committee, and for tabling amendments with additional safeguards. As always, she has gone the extra mile to try to reach a compromise; it sounds churlish against that background to say that I still believe it wrong to use children.

Let me briefly summarise the argument for banning the use of children as CHIS—a reform whose time will surely come, when what happens now will be regarded as Dickensian. First, we have the clearly stated view of the Children’s Commissioner, who has a statutory role to advance and monitor the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

“The Children’s Commissioner remains to be convinced that there is ever an appropriate situation in which a child should be used as a CHIS.”


That is pretty unequivocal.

Secondly, we have the Children Act 2004. Section 11 states that public bodies, including the police and other law enforcement entities, must have

“regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”.

This red line is embedded in our legal system. We are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3 of which provides:

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”


How can one promote the welfare of a child or act in its best interests by tasking some of the most vulnerable children in this country—some as young as 15—with infiltrating some of its most dangerous organisations and groups, including drug cartels, sex-trafficking rings and, potentially, terrorist cells? The circle cannot be squared. Either the interests of children are paramount or they are not.

Thirdly, children—often vulnerable, yet to come to terms with adulthood—are unable properly to assess the risk of what they are being asked to do, or even the extent of the mission. Those under 18 are legally children, whom Parliament has decided cannot be entrusted with a vote, get married or, indeed, buy alcohol. How can it be that a child as young as 15 can give their full and informed consent to being placed in a sexually exploitative environment, particularly given the pressures on them to do so from people in authority—and, indeed, the incentives that we have heard are being offered—from people whom they should trust and who might have been expected to save them?

Fourthly, related to that, far from encouraging children to get further entangled in criminal activities, those who have the best interests of children at heart should do precisely the opposite: disengage them from that environment at the earliest opportunity and so help them to rebuild their lives away from crime. The police should be pulling children away from criminality at every turn instead of pushing them further into the arms of serious criminals, often being asked to continue a harmful relationship, commit crimes and penetrate criminal gangs.

Fifthly—and finally—using underage CHIS is risky, as everyone recognises. However careful the authorisation, harm may come to a child. Their cover may be blown; reprisals may be taken. I make one prediction: if, tragically, an underage CHIS were to be killed, the policy would be reversed the next day after a public outcry and incredulity that this was permissible. What is proposed in the Bill is that the state should have immunity for conduct for which it regularly takes parents to court. It is creating a statutory mechanism expressly to permit the harming of children, and Parliament should stop it.

In Committee, there were 14 Back-Bench speakers, a large majority supporting the amendment and others seeking greater justification for the policy before deciding. I mention one or two contributions from among the many remarkable speeches. There was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, before the debate, believed that there were circumstances when the policy could be justified but, having listened to the arguments, declared himself in favour of an outright ban. There was the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, who powerfully asked us to consider putting our own 15 or 16 year-old into the role of a CHIS. Unsurprisingly, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged that this would be very difficult indeed for her to imagine.

In her speech, my noble friend pointed to the judgment of Mr Justice Supperstone, in which he considered this very issue of children’s welfare. She also referred to it in the email that we received at 1.58 pm. Understandably, I have not time to absorb that fully, but the Supperstone case does not apply exactly to the question at hand. Because of the scope of the Bill, the amendment cannot, sadly, prohibit the tasking of children as CHIS; it can only prohibit them being granted criminal conduct authorisations. There is a difference between passively observing criminal activity, as in the judgment, and blessing in advance the commission of a crime, as in the Bill. Further, the court recognised:

“The very significant risk of physical and psychological harm to juveniles from being a CHIS in the contact of serious crimes is self-evident”.


The Bill goes above and beyond what courts have previously assessed by enlarging the scope of activity for underage CHIS.

After the debate, the Minister kindly arranged for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and me to talk to two police officers from the Met with direct experience of handling underage CHIS. I was impressed by their determination to ensure that the law and guidance were properly followed. Records are kept, decisions and reasons are recorded, and alternatives are considered before authorisation.

I make two comments, which are not criticisms. First, once the case has been closed, there is no way that they would know if there had been any long-term impact on the child, who may by then be over 18, or what they had been through—a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in her speech in Committee. We know that trained police officers going undercover suffer from the consequences. Those who are underage will be even more vulnerable.

Secondly, their interpretation of whether the circumstances are so exceptional that an underage CHIS should be used comes from the perspective of the police. Their very mission is the prevention and detection of crime. Their interpretation may be different from that of, say, the Children’s Commissioner, who, as I have said, believes that there are no circumstances where this is justified. The children’s social workers or parents, none of whom have to be consulted or informed, might similarly come to a different view as to whether the circumstances warranted a CHIS. The decision is essentially a subjective one.

I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the debate and for tabling amendments; it is welcome that the Government have come forward with them. However, it is with some regret that I say that those amendments would not make a material difference to the lives of child CHIS. Indeed, they would make no difference at all to vulnerable individuals or victims of trafficking, since they are not contemplated whatever—something my Amendment 13 would put right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think that the noble Lord knows me by now. If Amendment 24 is carried, I will of course continue to work with him. The same is true for any other amendment that is successful on Report. I think that most noble Lords come from the same standpoint: they want to protect children but recognise that, sometimes, children may have to be involved in criminal activity. I know that my noble friend Lord Young does not take that view, but I think that most noble Lords recognise it. I will continue to work with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, Stella Creasy and others, whatever the outcome of today’s votes.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, asked what happens if a person retires. That lifetime duty of care would probably necessitate certain people retiring and others taking over, but that does not mean that the duty of care does not extend over the young person’s whole life. On the formal reporting mechanism, we have IPCO and I am sure that there are other such mechanisms through the person tasked with that duty of care to the CHIS. If there are any other formal reporting mechanisms, I will notify the House of them.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has generated a series of debates about the role of the state in protecting society, including where the boundaries lie and the extent to which they impinge on civil liberties. This debate has been no exception, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. I am grateful to all those who have spoken; I will come to some of their comments in a moment.

The argument in favour of the use of underage CHIS has basically been that, in exceptional circumstances, the end justifies the means. Permitting a child to commit a crime and take risks is justified by the prospect of catching criminals. The contrary argument is that the end does not always justify the means, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said; if it did, we would allow the waterboarding of suspected criminals and terrorists to save lives—but we do not. The debate has really been over where the risk/reward ratio, if I can call it that, falls in this case.

I am grateful to all those who have spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, referred to the UN convention and the inevitability of an element of risk if we go down this road. She also offered some additional safeguards of her own—namely, prior judicial approval.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, along with others, paid tribute to the work of Stella Creasy. I do so as well. She has been heroic in liaising with your Lordships in taking this agenda forward. As the noble Baroness said, the Bill formalises the ability of the state to harm a child. She made the very valid point that a guardian is required if someone underage is charged with shoplifting but that there is no such protection if they become a CHIS. She also analysed the difference between Amendment 24 and government Amendment 26.

My noble friend Lord Cormack came up with a different limit—namely, under 16—but said that he would be tolerably satisfied with Amendment 24, which may indeed be where we end up.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, again made the important point about how you distinguish between grooming on one hand, which we do not approve of, and using a child as a CHIS, which we, on occasion, do. I think she said that her party’s preference was for Amendment 24 rather than Amendment 12.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her kind words. She pointed out that having exceptional circumstances always allows a degree of flexibility and subjectivity which one cannot get away from. She pointed out that, even if the amendment was carried, we still cannot ban the use of underage CHIS. Again, she made the useful point, which I think picks up on a point the Minister made, that many people look younger than they are—they are over 18 but look younger. Could not more use be made of them to avoid the dilemma that some of us find ourselves in?

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham emphasised the moral imperative of safeguarding a child. I think he said that, while his first choice would be Amendment 12 and then Amendment 14, Amendment 24 ended up as his third choice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly pointed out that people are unaware at the moment of what is going on. She referred to them as “child spies”. Again, if push came to shove, the noble Baroness would support Amendment 24. She seemed amazed that an aristocrat—if I can call myself one of those—should bring forward social reform, but if she looks at the whole history of the 19th century, she will find that a lot of social reform was indeed pioneered by aristocrats.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was the swing voter in the last debate. He remains pro-Amendment 12, and I am grateful for that. Amendment 24 was his third preference. He referred to the long-lasting impact on the mental health of a child and cast doubt on whether they could give informed consent.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh also referred to UNCRC and came down, on balance, in favour of allowing CHIS in the most exceptional circumstances. But she needed convincing that Amendment 26, the government amendment, was better than Amendment 24.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was in favour of Amendment 24 and felt that Amendment 26 did not go far enough. He was in favour of using CHIS in exceptional circumstances and made it clear that he cannot support Amendment 12. I am disappointed by that, and I will come back to that in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke in favour of Amendments 25 and 19, and was against the use of CHIS.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, favoured the more nuanced approach of Amendment 24, rather than the absolute approach of Amendments 12 and 14.

My noble friend Lord Naseby agreed with the arguments that the vulnerable should be exempted, but he had some doubts about modern slavery.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, remains pro-Amendments 12 and 13, and I am grateful for that and for her support. She has not been persuaded by the argument. She made the point that parents who did what the Bill allows the police to do would find that their child would be taken into care. She also made the point that teenagers quite often act on emotion rather than reason.

I blushed when my noble friend Lord Holmes said his kind words about me. The high esteem in which he currently holds me may be lowered by what I have to say in a few moments.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has played a key role behind the scenes in trying to find a way through, and I pay tribute to that. He also mentioned James Brokenshire, somebody with whom I served in government for many years; I join those who wish him well and a speedy recovery. The noble Lord made four suggestions as to how we could build on what the Government have proposed, with a view to finding a solution.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was unimpressed by the government amendments and ended up pro-Amendment 24.

I have had a bit of time to read the Minister’s letter. In her wind-up speech, she made the point that Amendment 24 would be unworkable because of the difficulty of finding appropriate adults. But appropriate adults are already there; they have to be there for under-16s and for those who are vulnerable between the ages of 16 and 18. One could draw on the same cohort to meet the requirements of having an appropriate adult for others. I listened to her example, but in it the child is extricated only after the information has been procured. The argument many of us have put forward is that the child should be extricated at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than after they have done their bidding.

In a former life, I was a Chief Whip, and one of the qualities needed in a Whip is the ability to count. I have looked at the fate of amendments to this Bill where the Opposition has withheld support, and they have gone down by three-figure majorities. I also note the reservation of several on the Cross Benches whose views I respect, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I do not believe that dividing the House is a useful use of its time, particularly given the position of the Opposition. Against that background, I will not test the opinion of the House, but I hope that all those who spoke in favour of Amendment 12 will back Amendment 24. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill is an important milestone in Parliament’s response to domestic abuse. I invite your Lordships to step back 46 years to 11 February 1975, at the beginning of that journey. On that date, the other place

“Ordered, ‘That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the extent, nature and causes of the problems of families where there is violence between the partners … and to make recommendations.’” —[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/1975; col. 336.]


Most of the 13 members of that committee are understandably no longer with us, but two are now safely ensconced in your Lordships’ House and appeared on the Order Paper as Mrs Ann Taylor and Sir George Young.

In those days, there were no Select Committees as we now know them, taking evidence from Ministers. Our committee was technically a sub-committee of the Public Accounts Committee, and we broke fresh ground in summoning Ministers. This led our chairman, Willie Hamilton, to say:

“There was some indication of irritation by some Ministers that they had to be bothered to come before a Select Committee of proletariat Back Bench Members of Parliament. There was one occasion when a Minister—I shall not mention her name—came before us dressed up for a social function and felt that she had to be away quickly because she had to go to some function at Lancaster House.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/1978; col. 1408.]


More worrying was the attitude of the Home Office Minister responsible at the time. Willie Hamilton went on:

“I refer, first, to what my hon. Friend said in reply to Question No 1688: ‘I am very sceptical about whether this Committee, with all its wisdom, is going to be able to produce, after all this time, any new remedy.’”


It got worse.

“In his next answer, he said: ‘I am not sure there is anything this Committee or the Government can do about it. There is a solution; the solution is husbands ought to treat their wives better.’”


If that sounds like an old-fashioned Tory, I can tell you that it was a Labour Minister. His comment was rightly dismissed by our chairman:

“It is a pious hope that the problem will go away and leave Ministers to sleep peacefully on their portfolios.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/1978; col. 1410.]


Paragraph 5 of our report reflected this attitude by the then Government:

“We have been disappointed and alarmed by the ignorance and apparent apathy of some Government Departments and individual Ministers towards the extent of marital violence. Hardly any worthwhile research into either causes or remedies has been financed by the Government.”


Since then, I am happy to say that all Governments have been more appreciative of the work of Select Committees, and Ministers’ comments on the issues have been more sensitively expressed, as we heard from my noble friend’s welcome introduction.

Undeterred by this lack of ministerial enthusiasm, we persevered with our task. We visited the world’s first domestic violence shelter in Chiswick, run by the formidable Erin Pizzey. We took evidence from victims and produced our report, commending a number of new remedies and 28 recommendations—doubtless to the irritation of the then Minister. Many of them have subsequently been implemented; one, a statutory duty on local authorities to provide support, was fulfilled nearly half a century later, albeit narrowly defined.

One example of the many changes over 40 years has been the language used. Our report was entitled Battered Wives, as victims were referred to in those days, even though not all the victims were women, and of those who were, many were not wives. Nor did the emphasis on physical abuse do justice to the impact of coercive behaviour. The Bill before us puts that right, emphasising that domestic abuse is not just physical violence but can be emotional, coercive or controlling, and economic abuse.

In what remains of my four minutes, it is impossible to describe the real progress that has been made since that report, thanks to voluntary organisations such as Women’s Aid, which has campaigned tirelessly, and thanks to measures introduced by successive Governments. But the problem is still with us, and this Bill is a welcome progressive piece of social reform. It is capable of improvement, and I support suggestions such as those made by Crisis to improve access to housing. In the meantime, I welcome the Bill and believe that the time the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and I spent back in 1975 producing our report was time well spent.