Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I have the converse problem, in that I am running out of pages in my passport, because every time I go to Oslo, I get a stamp when I arrive and a stamp when I leave, even though, because I have applied for a residence permit—which I have yet to receive—I am not bound by the 90 days. However, we digress slightly.

Can the Minister explain what the cost of the Passport Office is overall compared with the amount of money that it generates? How much profit does the Passport Office generate, and how does the last financial year compare with previous years?

Following up on the questions raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Foster of Oxton, again in answers on an Urgent Question from the other place, the Minister was asked whether the 1,200 extra staff at the Passport Office employed to deal with the unprecedented surge in demand for passports following the end of Covid restrictions on travel were agency or permanent staff. Does the Minister have an answer to that question now? Conversely, how many permanent staff were furloughed in 2020 and 2021, when there were 3 million and 2 million fewer applications respectively than predicted?

We need to know whether the Passport Office is providing value for money for both applicants and the taxpayer. What staff cost savings were made in 2020 and 2021 when demand was low? How flexible is the Passport Office workforce in the face of fluctuating demand? Presumably, demand is higher in spring and summer and lower in autumn and winter. Are additional temporary staff employed at peak times or are permanent staff sitting around for six months of the year not doing very much?

How much more than the cost of producing a passport are applicants charged? If applicants pay for a premium service that the Passport Office cannot deliver within the advertised timeframe, is the premium fee refunded?

I very much welcome the introduction of a booking fee for a priority service that is not refundable if the scheduled appointment is not cancelled by the applicant 48 hours or more in advance. Slots are limited—or, at the moment, non-existent—and applicants need to be incentivised to keep their appointments. However, I question whether the whole fee should be forfeited if a prospective passport holder fails to attend an appointment for their application to be administered under the priority services without giving prior notice. I understand that the Passport Office could have made a considerable profit were the applicant to have attended the appointment but surely the cost of producing the passport should be refunded to the applicant—that is, the profit element should be retained but the cost element that is no longer incurred by the Passport Office should not. In other words, if the person does not turn up, they will not be issued with a passport, therefore the cost of producing that passport is not incurred by the Passport Office. The additional fee for a premium service should therefore be forfeited but surely the cost of producing the passport should be returned to the applicant. Can the Minister say what the fixed and marginal costs are in the case of a missed appointment for a priority service?

We acknowledge the various fee waiver and fee reduction aspects of these regulations for specified groups, as well as the discretion to retain deposits and fees dependent on individual circumstances, but, as with all Home Office services in relation to the UK border, the question remains as to why the Home Office uniquely must be self-funding. With so many more people who require a passport other than our Armed Forces, diplomats and government Ministers having to travel abroad, whether on business or to support vulnerable relatives, for example, why is almost everyone charged a much higher price for a passport than it costs to produce it? I look forward to the Minister’s response, either now or subsequently in writing.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. We look forward to her response to the various questions and comments.

I very much agree with the remarks from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Foster, and, frankly, all the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. Before I start my remarks in support of them, the regulations raise a number of questions and comments for us all, not least that we are debating passport fees as set out in the schedule while, as we have heard, people are waiting months for their applications to be handled. They are often unable to access help and many are missing holidays, weddings and job opportunities because the passport system simply is not working, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, pointed out. Slowing down the fast track, as these regulations do, is almost an admission of failure. Why do Ministers not believe that the system can get back on track and meet existing targets in the longer term?

We have no concerns over the purely technical changes that set out passport fees more simply. We agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, it is fair to look at keeping the booking fee where a person books a priority appointment but fails to turn up. However, we have a few questions to raise on this and other aspects of the regulations. Can the Minister update us on the current backlog? The latest reported figure was half a million but the Home Office has not provided updated figures when asked.

Over the weekend, the Times reported that staff have warned that the systems they are being asked to use are not fit for purpose. How will the existing regulations be made fit for purpose when the existing system is said by staff not to be fit for purpose? The article reported that the existing pressures are only going to get “heavier” and that people are being given “poor, misleading advice” by the advice line provider. As I said, this SI will slow down the fast-track process by one day. Is that a proportionate response to all the problems being faced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

That is a very good question. I would have thought it would be at the 10-year point, but the noble Lord is absolutely right. If there are 13 years on the passport, would it send it after 13 years, and therefore your passport will be three years out of date? I will find out.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I was waiting for the Minister to inform the Committee of the current figure for the backlog. She gave us the application numbers. The application number now is 3.2 million or something, but that is a different way of answering the question. Can she update us on the current backlog figure? We had half a million, but can she update it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Our applications forecast is 9.5 million; I said that the current number was 3.2 million. On the current status, we anticipate that we will be on target to deliver those 9.5 million. I do not know the number of people awaiting passports at this point, but I will find out.

Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but why, despite the Minister’s best efforts, is a bureaucratic nightmare the reality for many Ukrainians fleeing war? The most alarming thing is that the people bearing the brunt of the Home Secretary’s failures are young children. Babies, young children and their families fleeing war are forced to travel hundreds of miles across Europe to get biometrics done. The problem has been reported for weeks, and we have already raised it in the Chamber, so what is being done about it? Apparently, even once a visa approved, the Home Office is failing to tell people that they are finally welcome in the UK. Why is it that 71,000 visas have been approved but that, so far, only 21,600 people have arrived here safely? I know that the Minister knows this and is working hard on it, but it needs fixing urgently.

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his response. His first question was why young children need to have their biometrics done, and he said that it could mean they have to travel a long way to do it. The reason why they have to have their biometrics done, and the reason why all this procedure takes place, is simply to make sure that they are indeed the children of the parent they are with. I have visited a VAC, having taken notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said—as I always do and as indeed I did when he was in the other place—because it is very serious. It is about as light-touch as is imaginable. For example, I saw a young child whose only form of identification to show that she was indeed the child of that mother was a letter from the doctor who delivered the child in Ukraine. That was acceptable, as are birth certificates. There is not a very high level of proof, but we just have to make sure because of our information about traffickers of young children. I know that the noble Lord would sympathise with that.

The noble Lord’s second question was, why do we not tell people when they have got the visa? There have been delays, and I am now assured that that is not the case. I am sure that the noble Lord will have me here at this very Dispatch Box if he has reports to the contrary, but he knows he could tell me that personally beforehand.

Finally, the noble Lord asked why there are so few arrivals compared to the total amount of visas. This has been perplexing me. The main reason for my recent visit to Poland was to try to find out why it has happened. There are a number of reasons, and I have commissioned some professional research on it given the number of people who have got visas compared to the number coming, so I can give the noble Lord only my opinion based on what I saw. I think that there are two reasons. One of them is that it has taken too long for people to get the visas from the time of their application—I accept that and have done my best to make sure that it is not the case, and we are now at “friction”, which means that the target of 48 hours should in the vast majority of cases be met.

The second reason—again, this is not research or a systematic poll or anything like that; it is from speaking to people involved—is that many of the refugees take our visas out in case the worst happens beyond now, but, for the moment, a lot of them believe that they can go back and live in their country, and they wish to stay as close as possible. I have had quite a few moving experiences in Syria and other places, but seeing young women speaking on mobile phones to their husbands and fathers who are fighting in live time—which I know can obviously be done with technology—I can imagine why they want to stay as near as possible. I am working on this, and I intend to make sure that the system is simplified and that we have people helping people through the procedure. If necessary, we will move on to helping them with flights and with everything in the process.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I have the greatest respect for, I am not a lawyer, so it is with some trepidation that I enter the arena. But that is my role. As far as my common sense tells me, international agreements such as the 1951 refugee convention mean nothing if each and every signatory to the convention can reinterpret the agreement to suit its own political ends. The whole point of the refugee convention, like the European Convention on Human Rights, is to prevent rogue states passing domestic legislation that overrules the rights of refugees or the basic human rights of their own citizens in the wake of what was then the recent history of the Second World War.

On the back of their attempts to reinterpret the 1951 refugee convention, this Government appear to be about to remove the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights, judging by the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. In the context of those convicted of terrorism offences challenging their segregation in prison, Dominic Raab said, at two hours and 21 minutes into the programme,

“it shows you why our Bill of Rights is so important to replace the Human Rights Act.”

So much for the Minister relying on the Human Rights Act in her arguments. I am reminded of “First they came” by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller. If we do not speak out about this Government eroding the rights of refugees, as they seek to do in this Bill, the next step will be to erode the rights of each and every one of us.

Motion A1 is a final attempt to at least make the Government honest. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said yesterday, if the Government were to say, “We know this Bill does not comply with the refugee convention, but we are going to enact it anyway”, they would at least be being honest. Motion A1, as I understand it, simply allows the courts to make a declaration that any parts of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are incompatible with the refugee convention and require the Government to take note of the finding—the Government having been given the opportunity to be joined as a party to the proceedings. If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, divides the House, we will support her. I understand why she may not want to divide the House, but if this were our amendment, we would. This time, it is refugees’ rights; next time, it could be our rights that are in danger if the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, gets his way.

We also strongly support Motion B1 for similar reasons. It should be for the Secretary of State to prove why a genuine refugee is to be categorised as a class 1 or class 2 refugee. In any event, any Immigration Rules that are applied to whichever group a genuine refugee is categorised by the Secretary of State as falling into must not permit any practice that would be contrary to the Government’s international obligations. If this were our amendment, we would be dividing the House, but we respect the noble Lord’s decision.

On Motion C, I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, having won the argument yesterday by one vote, has chosen not to pursue the right to work for refugees, despite the Government being unable to produce a shred of evidence to counter the comprehensive and compelling evidence provided yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly demonstrated that the right to work is not a so-called pull factor. The arguments made by the Minister about costs, devoid of any facts based on real-world experience unlike those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, were speculative and, never having been presented before during the passage of the Bill from my recollection, smacked of last-gasp desperation.

Liberal Democrats have long campaigned and will continue to campaign for the right of asylum seekers to pay their own way, to secure the dignity that comes from being able to support themselves and to integrate more effectively in society by being able to work. In case this is my last opportunity to speak on this Bill, may I say how appalled and disgusted I am by it? There is only one political party to blame for this shameful legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, let me start by saying that I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. Along with many noble Lords and Baronesses in this House, I have argued time and again against a Bill that most of us think is wrong and unethical. We have argued against the Government time after time on these issues, and I am going to spend a couple of minutes saying why I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

I wanted to put that on record to start with because I do not want the position that we have taken—thinking that we have come to the end of the parliamentary political process with this—to be misunderstood to mean that we do not agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti or with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Pannick and Lord Paddick, or with any other Member who supports these amendments, because I do, and we do. But there comes a point—even I accept this, after what I said yesterday—where you have to recognise that this would be the fourth time that we would have sent this back.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was kind enough to say what he did about me in the Commons, but I think that the Commons currently guillotines legislation far too quickly, which means that things are not properly considered. Frankly, that causes resentment—as happened the other day when we sent 12 amendments back and they were discussed in an hour—and people to ask why we should not send things back more often.

That is the root of the problem. But as someone who has stood for election on many of these issue and, like others, lost, fighting for this out in the community, I accept that the battle or argument now has to go beyond Parliament and out into the country. This is what elections are about. The Government get their way in the end because they won the 2019 general election and can pursue their agenda in Parliament. I can be angry, and this House can send a Bill back 10 or 12 times, but if the Conservative Government have a majority in the Commons, they will simply reject it. Of course we have a right to ask the Commons to think again, and in some cases it has done. I accept that there is a debate around how many times we should send Bills back, and whether we should send this one back once more; there is a legitimate question as to whether three times is enough or whether it should be four. But the position we have come to is that we think we are now at the end of the line. That is clearly not a view that everyone agrees with, but let it not be said that the disagreement is about the content of the Bill or the worth of the amendments; it is not. It is just about the best way to take this forward. That is the point I wanted to make.

It is worth reiterating that, as much as any other, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes to the heart of the Bill. Essentially, it was trying to say that the differential treatment of refugees would mean that vast numbers of people who come and claim asylum in this country would be criminalised. I cannot believe that that is acceptable, and that is what the amendment is getting at. We had the almost farcical situation where we were trying to imagine how someone could actually get here legitimately to claim asylum. We are an island, so what country can you come through unless you fly? But you cannot fly, because of the database checks that are carried out when you get on a plane, and so by definition you must come through a safe country to get here. According to the Bill we have before us, anybody doing that is coming illegally and should be stopped—unless they have come on one of the safe routes, but these are unavailable to large numbers of people.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. He and other noble Lords pointed out that this would have criminalised Ukrainians fleeing at the beginning of the conflict, and Afghans who had helped the British Army. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is crucial, but these arguments have to be won not only in this Chamber but out in the country. But instead, to be frank, the Government say that we have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country and they are the only ones who will fix it—ignoring the fact that they have been in power for 12 years and have not managed to sort it out in that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will appreciate that this is not a debate as to whether the amendment is right but about where we go to now. That is a position that noble Lords will have to consider for themselves, but we have considered it very carefully and come to the view that we have.

I have not always agreed with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, but on this she is absolutely right and I totally agree with the points she has made. Other noble Lords have joined in: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made his usual excellent contribution, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, who pointed out the importance of obeying international law and respecting our international obligations.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have Motion K1 in this group but I will speak to each of the other Motions. I will say very little on the individual Motions, but I remind the House of what I said at Second Reading. If British people, as we are constantly told, are concerned about immigration, this Bill, which targets asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery, is not focused on their primary concern.

In an article in the Telegraph yesterday, Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former chief of staff, wrote about his concerns about mass immigration. Nowhere in that article does he mention asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery or the Nationality and Borders Bill. He points to the real causes of mass immigration: 240,000 work visas, up 25% compared with 2019, which was a big year for immigration; 280,000 family visas, up 49%; and 430,000 student visas, up 52%. These numbers dwarf the numbers claiming asylum.

Work permits have become unlimited; the definition of a skilled worker has been watered down; the shortage occupation list has been extended; employers no longer have to prove that they could not recruit from the resident population; and foreign students are allowed to stay on after their studies no matter what their qualification. An Australian-style points-based system, designed to increase immigration into Australia, is having the same effect here, despite the end of free movement. Yet this Government, and this Bill, address none of these issues but instead focus on the small minority fleeing war, persecution and modern slavery, who desperately need sanctuary.

On Motions A and A1, we believe that the safeguards the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has secured in relation to deprivation of British citizenship without notice will ensure that further abuse of the system is prevented. While we have sympathy with the position of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, we are pleased that she is not going to divide the House on this occasion.

On Motions K and K1, I understand the Government’s determination to prosecute people smugglers but the unintended consequences of removing the “for gain” element of the offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker into the United Kingdom are to subject individuals, most importantly those seeking to rescue migrants drowning in the channel, to prosecution.

The first amendment approved by this House to reinstate “for gain” was a Labour amendment. The second, a Liberal Democrat amendment, provided that those with a reasonable excuse for facilitating entry would not commit an offence. Both were rejected by the other place. This third attempt would mean that individuals engaged in genuine humanitarian activity, including the preservation of life, would not commit an offence.

This is about removing doubt from the minds of those who come across drowning migrants in the channel that they may be prosecuted if they effect an immediate rescue. The Bill, as drafted, says that they commit a criminal offence. The only current defence is that, once charged, they may present a defence in court—once they have been arrested and prosecuted. Whatever the Government might say, that could cause people to hesitate when decisive, life-saving action is needed. We believe that lives depend on Motion K1 being agreed by this House, and I urge noble Lords around the House to support it.

We support Motion L1, and do not believe that modern slavery should be part of this Bill at all. These victims are extremely vulnerable and should be supported, apart from in very exceptional circumstances. The current “public order” concern is far too broad. We believe that Motion L1 provides a solution to that issue, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will explain.

On Motion M, it is with great regret that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over many years, to protect and properly support victims of modern slavery, have come to a point where his own party, the Conservative Party, refuse to support him in his attempts to make appropriate provision for such victims.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by saying a couple of words about a couple of the Motions and will then concentrate my remarks on Motion L1, in my name, on modern slavery.

On Motion A1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and the work she and many others in this House have done on this particular issue. As she knows, we originally wanted the whole clause to be removed, but we recognise that the Government have changed the clause significantly by accepting the safeguards tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The Minister is to be congratulated on moving as far as she did on that issue. On that basis, and that of other safeguards, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has mentioned, there is nothing further we can do with respect to this clause. As I said, we all note the work which the Minister has done. Certainly, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would not have been as well accepted as it was by the Government without the work she has done.

On Motion K1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we agree entirely with the problems which the removal of the words “for gain” creates. He knows that I have supported him all the way through the Bill. But we are left with difficult decisions and, although the Government have removed rescue efforts co-ordinated by the coastguard from the scope of the offence, a captain who takes a split-second decision to rescue lives at sea will officially commit an offence. This is addressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, only by the fact that they will have an exceptionally strong defence for doing so. I note that the Minister has said on a number of occasions that she does not believe that someone would be prosecuted in those circumstances, and it would helpful if she reiterated that again from the Dispatch Box as a further safeguard and reassurance to people who may be put in that position. We would have liked to see this remaining problem fixed but, as I said, as the Government have already significantly amended this clause, we are doubtful that there is anything more to be achieved in this respect and there are other issues we wish to focus on—one of which I will turn to now.

I first thank the Minister, who tried to address many of the issues which have been raised around Clause 62. I remind noble Lords that, as my amendment points to, this clause deals with disqualifying potential victims of modern slavery from protection. As the Minister confirmed, this includes children. We are genuinely trying to be helpful on this issue. As the Minister outlined, the Government clearly recognise the real problem here. The clause, as originally drafted, was too broad, and it remains too broad. It will actually capture victims who have a criminal record only as a consequence of their slavery—because they have been exploited and forced into crime by their traffickers. This legislation, even as amended, and even with the reassurances from the Minister, will still capture victims of modern slavery and disqualify them from protection. This is the reality of the legislation before us: it will prevent victims entering the NRM; it will tighten traffickers’ hold on their victims; and it will stop us being able to find, stop and prosecute the vile people traffickers.

The Government have been generous with their time; they have met me and trafficking organisations on numerous occasions. But the problem remains in the way that this clause is drafted. The amendment that I have put before the House seeks to give the Government time to sort out the issue, which they recognise as a problem, of defining “public order”. As it is in the Bill at the moment, victims of trafficking who commit minor offences are potentially disqualified from protection. That cannot be what the Government, this House or anyone would wish, but it is the consequence of the Bill—it is the consequence of the legislation as it is drafted. Whatever the warm words and intentions of the Minister—who would not want that to happen and says that it will be all right on a case-by-case basis—you cannot legislate on the basis that it will be all right on the night. That is not the right way of doing it. The legislation creates the problem. We also tried to address concerns around terrorism, and that is why we added TPIMs to the amendment.

I want to refer to the Government’s latest statistics to conclude my remarks on modern slavery. According to the Government’s own document, published a couple of weeks ago, 43% of those who claimed asylum last year because of exploitation were children. This means that 43% will potentially be impacted—I am not saying that they will be—by this clause as it is currently drafted. That is the reality of what is before your Lordships this afternoon and why I am so insistent on my amendment, in Motion L1.

The Minister referred to the number of adults who are not officially referred—if you are an adult, you have to give consent—and where instead the first responders act on their duty to notify. In the past year, this number has increased by 47%—47% of adults are refusing to consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism. The Minister will say that it is up to them whether or not they consent, but let me say why I think they do not consent. I think that an increasing number of victims or potential victims of trafficking do not consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism because they are scared. They do not see authority in the way that we do. They do not see police officers in the way that we do. They do not see immigration officials in the way that we do. They do not see civil servants in the way that we do. They are frightened. They are victims. They may have been forced into criminality and, as such, they do not want to have it imposed on them that they must be referred to an official system. That there has been a 47% increase in victims or potential victims refusing to consent to being referred to the system should ring alarm bells with everyone.

My amendment says that, because of an increased emphasis on things such as public order, there is a failure to recognise the reality for victims of slavery and their lives. Many noble Lords here, including me, have met victim after victim and potential victim after potential victim—people who are terrified, mortified and scarred for ever by their experience. Yet the way this Bill is drafted, it will penalise them for that experience and any forced criminality. This is not the Government’s intention—I accept that—but it is the reality of the legislation before them. I ask your Lordships this: why, either in this place or the other place, would you pass a piece of legislation that flies directly in the face of the policy objectives that you have? It is nonsense. The Government do not want to exclude potential victims of modern slavery from referring themselves or being referred, but that will be the consequence of this legislation if it is unamended.

We will divide the House on this. We want the Commons once again to think whether they really want to pass legislation that will potentially lead to victims of modern slavery not coming forward or having the help and support they deserve. I do not believe they do. That is why we should support Motion L1 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, those who are in breach of a deportation order or who have been excluded on national security grounds will know that they are committing a criminal offence if they enter the UK, as Motion J1 provides for, but the legislation, as in the case of Motion K1, is too widely drawn. We support Motion J1.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I too will try to be brief, which does not always come naturally to me. I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Hacking on his 50th Lords birthday, or whatever the equivalent is; that is absolutely amazing.

This is a very serious group of amendments, and I will try to cut to the nub on each of them. I take the point made very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about how sometimes in this place—I have limited experience here compared to many other noble Lords—the policy with respect to the Bill changes as we read our morning newspapers. The Government have completely retreated on the pushback policy, which we see withdrawn from the Bill. There was a debate on whether it needed to be part of the Bill; we could not get a clear answer on that. I said that the MoD and the Home Office were at loggerheads, the Government told us that they were not, and then the MoD refused to do something, so the Government had to withdraw it before it gets to court. Is it any wonder that we say to the Commons, “Do you know what you’re doing?” and “You need to think again”?

I say to noble Lords, as I have to many people, that if the Commons had debated the 12 amendments and votes that went from this place for longer than an hour before they voted, we may have thought that this had been considered properly. While it is the constitutional right of this place to revise legislation and to say to the Commons to think again, we may have accepted that they had done that. However, in this case, as the House of Lords we are perfectly entitled to say to the Commons, “You spent an hour on it a couple of days ago; you can spend another hour on it this evening to think about whether you’ve got it right.”

Of course, at the end of the day, the elected Chamber has the right to get its way, but so has this place the right to say to the Commons, “Do you really think you’ve got it right?” On serious matters, when we are talking about asylum and refugee status, we have the right to say to the Commons, as each and every one of these amendments does, “Are you trebly or doubly sure that you’ve got it right?”

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I turned around then because thought I was back in the Commons being heckled. That is why these amendments are so important.

Very briefly, on Motion C1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my Motion J1, which essentially deal with the same thing—the offence of arrival and the differential treatment—the Government and the Commons have failed to answer how on earth anybody can claim asylum in this country if they arrive here through an irregular route. They cannot; they are automatically assumed to be illegal. We are saying to the Government: surely that cannot be right.

Nobody wants unlimited irregular migration, but without Motion C1 or Motion J1 we are essentially saying in this Bill that Uighurs, Christians fleeing persecution and people from Ukraine or any of the hot spots of the world who come to this country are criminalised and are second-class refugees. Is that what we really want? On something as fundamental as that, we are perfectly entitled to turn around to the Government and ask, “Are you sure you’ve got that right? Is that what you really want?”. If in the end they say yes, as I suspect they will, of course we will have reluctantly to give way, but do we really want to say that a Ukrainian being bombed and fleeing on 3 January or whenever the illegal Russian invasion started—it applies from 1 January—who arrives in this country without a visa, a passport and the proper papers is illegal and a second-class refugee? Is that right? All the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and me seek to do is to ask, “Do you not need to think again on that?”. I suggest that they do.

The right reverend Prelate’s amendment essentially deals with safe and legal routes and the importance of what we have seen with respect to Rwanda. We saw in the Private Notice Question yesterday and the short remarks made today that there should have been a full and fundamental debate about Rwanda and the rights and wrongs of that policy. Rather than seeking workable safe return agreements with our closest neighbours, which we have successfully used in the past, the Government have instead spent millions of pounds press-releasing a deal that the Civil Service could not even sign off as being value for money. That is what we are being asked to accept and what Motion F1 on offshoring, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, seeks to deal with.

In closing, so that people get the gist that I support the amendments—I think we are right in sending a few back, if we and other noble Lords are lucky enough to get a majority in this House—I will speak to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and some other noble Lords have supported Motion B1. What I am going to read is so important; it speaks for itself. The Government say the Bill conforms to the refugee convention. Motion B1 is saying, “Let’s put that in the Bill, then”. Why is this so important? It is because this country flies in the face of what the UNHCR said. I will read the paragraph. I hope noble Lords will bear with me while I read this, then I will finish. The UNHCR said:

“The Nationality and Borders Bill follows almost to the letter the Government’s New Plan for Immigration Policy Statement, issued on 24 March 2021, in some cases adding further restrictions on the right to claim asylum and on the rights of refugees. UNHCR must therefore regretfully reiterate its considered view that the Bill is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s avowed commitment to upholding the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention and with the country’s longstanding role as a global champion for the refugee cause.”


That is why Motion B1 is so important, why the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords have made the remarks they have, and why my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has moved this Motion. The UNHCR has said that our global reputation is at risk. That is why we should ask the House of Commons to think again, and we are perfectly entitled to do so.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, a very happy 50th anniversary of his maiden speech. I do not think I will be here on the 50th anniversary of my maiden speech; my family will not let me.

Yes, people have taken longer in this debate than they might have. It is an incredibly important Bill, so I do not accuse my noble friend Lord Horam of being long and rambling. As is the convention of your Lordships’ House, everyone has a right to have their say. In my time I have listened to many a long and rambling speech and managed to keep a smile on my face, so I think we all should.

I will first talk to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, supported by my noble friend Lady Stroud, on the cost of the right-to-work amendment. We have carefully considered all the evidence put forward on the issue, and the financial assumptions made by the Lift the Ban report are not supported by our findings. They are optimistic and do not reflect the nuanced reality of asylum seeker employment. To the extent that there would be any savings at all—that is doubtful—they are likely, in all cases, to come with a loss to the Home Office stemming from operating a more relaxed policy. There are a number of operational challenges, but the main ones relate to the likely need for many asylum seekers either to transition in and out of support while working, due to the nature of low-paid transitory jobs, or to continue to be supported while working. This would mean that savings on support payments would be extremely limited, while setting up and maintaining a system to calculate adjustments to such payments as wages rise and fall, week to week and month to month, would be complex and costly.

As a result, the Government’s view is that our resources would be better deployed in reforming the end-to-end asylum system and reducing unfounded intake, thereby resulting in faster decisions and genuine refugees being able to work and integrate more quickly. My noble friend and I agree on the ends, just not on the means to get there.

I turn next to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I repeat that the UK is a global leader in resettlement. We have provided a route to resettlement for more than 100,000 people.

On the refugee convention, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said, the Attorney-General has signed off this Bill. We maintain that our policy complies fully with our international obligations and is a good faith interpretation in line with the Vienna convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the Vienna convention is not intended to be a free-for-all; there are parameters in it. Where the terms of the refugee convention are open to some interpretation, there may of course be more than one good faith, compatible interpretation. I notice that the noble Lord is shaking his head—I never expected him to agree with me—but that is our view. My noble friend Lord Wolfson has set out at great length his view on the refugee convention.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, challenges me to make the statement that we do not think it complies but are doing it anyway; he will not be surprised that I am not going to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said it is for the courts to decide our interpretation. No, it is for Parliament.

In response to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, supported by my noble friend Lord Cormack, I reiterate that these amendments would go significantly beyond existing legislation, which has of course been in place for decades.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked me to confirm that there will be a chance to debate the Rwanda partnership in both Houses before any individual is removed. There has already been significant debate on the partnership in a Statement by the Home Secretary, in Commons Questions, in a PNQ and again in this House today. I know there will be many more opportunities to debate this.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also asked about family reunion. As I have said to him on many occasions, those with family links in the UK who want to be considered for entry to the UK should seek to do so via legal and safe routes. No one should put their life into the hands of criminals by making dangerous and irregular journeys. I assure the noble Lord that access to family reunion will be available to all group 1 and group 2 refugees where a refusal would breach their Article 8 rights, in line with our international obligations.

My noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked how the Rwanda partnership would apply to victims of modern slavery. Decisions on the partnership will be taken on a case-by-case basis and nobody will be relocated if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them. Everyone considered for relocations will be screened, interviewed and have access to legal advice. The provision in the MoU ensures that Rwanda supports everyone who is transferred. Again, I reassure noble Lords that we will only ever act in line with our commitments under our international legal obligations, including those that pertain to potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J and I beg to move.

Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)

[Lord Coaker]

Moved by

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 13D as an amendment in lieu and Amendment 13E as a consequential amendment—

13D: Page 40, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—“(D1) A person who knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom—(a) in breach of a deportation order, or(b) following their exclusion from the United Kingdom on the grounds of national security,commits an offence.”

13E: Page 41, line 4, leave out paragraph (e)”

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg to move Motion J1 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 25D in lieu—

25D: Leave out Clause 62 and insert the following new Clause—
“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.
(2) A competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60 of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—
(a) on the grounds of public order; or
(b) where the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), the circumstances in which there are grounds of public order are where—
(a) the person has been convicted of a terrorist offence; or
(b) the person is subject to a TPIM notice (within the meaning given by section 2 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011).
(4) The Secretary of State must, within one year of this Act being passed—
(a) prepare and publish a consultation on whether the circumstances in which there are grounds of public order under subsection (3) should be expanded to include circumstances where a person has been convicted of any specific offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorist offence; and
(b) lay a response to the consultation before each House of Parliament.
(5) A consultation response published under subsection (4)(b) must include a statement setting out how any proposed additions to subsection (3) are compliant with the Trafficking Convention.
(6) In subsection (3) a “terrorist offence” means any of the following (whenever committed)—
(a) an offence listed in—
(i) Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code (terrorism offences: England and Wales), or
(ii) Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (terrorism offences: Scotland and Northern Ireland);
(b) an offence that was determined to have a terrorist connection under—
(i) section 69 of the Sentencing Code (in the case of an offender sentenced in England and Wales), or
(ii) section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Northern Ireland, or an offender sentenced in England and Wales before the Sentencing Code applied);
(c) an offence that has been proved to have been aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection under section 31 of the Counter- Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Scotland).
(7) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—
(a) in exceptional circumstances;
(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed, including that the person in question poses an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order; and
(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
(8) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—
(a) a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights;
(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention; or
(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
(9) For the purposes of a determination under subsection (2)(b) victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.
(10) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstance where—
(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery, or
(b) any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.
(11) This section does not apply where the person is under 18 years at the time of the referral.
(12) In section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (guidance about identifying and supporting victims), after subsection (1)(c) insert—
“(d) under what circumstances a person may be considered to pose an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.”
(13) Nothing in this section affects the application of section 60(2).””

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg to move Motion L1 in my name.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 73; do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 73C to the words restored by their disagreement to Amendment 73; do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 74A to its Amendment 74, on its Amendment 74B to that Amendment in lieu, and on its consequential Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G; do insist on its Amendment 87, and on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H to the words restored to the Bill; and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 73E in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 and in their Amendment 87K to the words restored by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 87.”

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in my name. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to speak to his worthwhile and important amendment and, in view of the time, will concentrate on those in my name, namely A1 and B2. Amendment A1 would remove the noise provision from marches and one-person protests, while Amendment B2 would remove the noise provision from public assemblies. In other words, we have responded to what the Commons has said and narrowed it down to the particular issue of noise.

I am sure that, in her conclusion, the Minister will point to something that I suggest actually shows the importance of standing up against the Commons to get concessions. As a result of us doing that, the Government have made a concession; they tabled Amendment 73E, which was not in the previous concessions that they gave. As a result of us telling the Commons to think again, it did, and has come forward with Amendment 73E.

The same arguments were made to me last time: that we should not be pushing the Commons again, that we should not be standing up to it again, and that we had done our job and had pushed it as far as we could. Yet we pushed one more time and here is Amendment 73E, where the Government have promised a review—Governments always promise a review of one sort or another when they are in trouble. This amendment promises a review after two years to see whether the noise clause in the Bill is actually working or not. There we are—there is a concession. They do not say what will happen if they find it has not worked, why they have decided on two years, or why they did not include a review in two years of whether they should have put it in, but there we go—there is a review.

I say to the Minister that, of course, the elected House has the right to get its own way, but it does not have the right to do so easily without being held to account, without being pushed and without being made to think about what it is doing. I will come to that with respect to noise in a minute. We have narrowed it down; we have listened, but the Minister and others made exactly the same argument to me a few days ago. I resisted that and said we had every right to push the Commons again and, lo and behold, we get a concession.

I think that is the House of Lords doing its job; I think that is the Minister doing her job. She will have gone back to the Home Office and said: “He’s off again. We’ve got to offer something. What can we do?”—I am not doing a “Yes Minister” plot here, but they would have done “Yes Minister”-type activity. They will have sat in the office, and somebody will have said, “We can offer a review. Minister, it is always very easy to offer a review, because actually it does not mean very much but it sounds good, and we can add a bit around looking at whether the provision works or not. You do not have say you do or you don’t, but actually it is very good because Coaker will have to say, ‘Well, thank you very much for offering us a review.’” My important constitutional point is that it was not in there until I said that it was not our constitutional right to defeat or kill the Bill, but it was our constitutional right to say to the Commons, “You have got this completely wrong on noise.”

I will not name people here—although one is about—but I have been encouraged by noble Lords on all sides saying: “This is barking mad, but sometimes you have to vote for it because you are whipped to vote for it; but you carry on.” And I am going to carry on. I am sure that if people go through Hansard when I was a Home Office Minister, they will be able to find things quite as ridiculous as this, but banning something on the grounds that it is too noisy without any idea how you are going to define “too noisy” is, I suggest, ridiculous.

I say as a serious point that the Government have now adapted and adopted all sorts of conditions that they can put on marches but also added those to assemblies. That is a debate that we and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have had on a number of occasions, but the Government have extended the power to put conditions on assemblies. We have now accepted that; we have said that that is the Commons having their way and we will accept it. But on the issue of noise, saying that you can ban a demonstration, a protest or an assembly on the grounds that it is too noisy is not only ridiculous but it undermines the right to protest.

I have said numerous times that I do not attack the Government for wanting to ban protests. I do not attack the Government for wanting to end the right to demonstrate. That is nonsensical; I do not believe that. Although not as much as me, I suspect that one or two Members of your Lordships’ House opposite have been on demonstrations. I hope they have not been too noisy. I do not know what “too noisy” means, but I just say that that is a problem.

The Minister knows that the police did not actually ask for this. I do not know who did. I do not know how it turned up in the Bill, but it did and there it is: we have noise. You can tell the Government are in trouble. I am not going to go through all the various issues that I raised about the brilliant publicity the Government got as a result of me pointing out certain thresholds that had to be met in order for the noise provisions to be implemented, but I say to noble Lords that they should read the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: noise-related provisions factsheet. It is a brilliant piece of government explanation, an exposition on what thresholds have to be met in order for noise conditions to be placed on a demonstration by the police. Only a senior officer will be able to determine what “too noisy” is. I forget the rank. I should have written it down. I think it is chief inspector or above. I wonder whether it should be a chief inspector. We have the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, here. Perhaps he could advise us. What is the correct rank for a police officer to work out whether something is too noisy? Goodness me, it is an important decision that impacts on the right to protest. It cannot just be a chief inspector, so a superintendent, maybe. It could even be something just for the chief of police to determine, but who knows?

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

More!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No. As an aside, I googled double-gazing companies, just in case the Minister wanted a hand with that. However, I thought that was not taking this, or dealing with this, with the seriousness it needs. I get criticised for using humour but the reason I do so is not to trivialise an important point of principle; all I am doing is saying that I am quoting from a government document on the website, available and updated for the benefit of this deliberation. The Government have got their way on a whole range of different issues; it is the right of the Commons, as the Minister pointed out, to have its way as the elected House. We have an absolute right, though, as the House of Lords, to push right until the last minute on things that are nonsensical. The “too noisy” provision is a nonsense. Protests are about noise.

The police have perfectly adequate powers; they arrest people for making noise, using breaches of the peace and so on. The government document says that the trouble with a breach of the peace is that it does not have very much power, except that the police can arrest you. I would have thought that being able to arrest was adequate. I do not know about other noble Lords but I have never been arrested. I suggest to this House that for the vast majority of people, believing that they were going to be arrested would be a pretty serious threat to them. For the vast majority of people, that would stop them. The Government’s document says that it is not an adequate power. My view is that the power of arrest is a pretty important power that the police can use.

The right to protest is a fundamental right of democracy—a fundamental right that all of us, including me, have used—and one that involves making noise. The Government have got their way in respect of place and conditions, not only on processions but on assembly. We pushed back and the Government have now made a further concession to have a review after two years as to whether this “too noisy” provision has worked. It is time for us to push back again and say that the provision is a nonsense; it is ridiculous. It does not work, it will not work and it is not needed. I hope that when it comes to a Division, noble Lords will consider this a step too far in allowing the police to act to control protests, processions and marches. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, for all the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we support Motions A1 and B2 on the noise trigger. Specifically, asking the police to anticipate what noise levels a protest that has yet to take place might result in is likely to bring the police into unnecessary and avoidable conflict with the public, further undermining the trust and confidence that the police rely on to be effective. The more popular the protest, the more likely it is to be noisy and the more likely it is to be banned.

I cannot play the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, at his own game, but he did ask me a specific question about the rank of officer who should be judging whether a protest is too noisy. Perhaps an additional condition should be for that officer to have a hearing test, because we cannot possibly have hearing-impaired senior officers making such important judgments.

On Motions B and B1, we insist on the amendment passed by this House the last time this issue was considered. That amendment allows the police to impose conditions on the start and end time of an assembly, meeting or political rally, in addition to the existing powers they have to set or move where the assembly takes place and to limit the numbers attending and its duration, but not to ban an assembly, meeting or political rally completely. In particular, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others.

Of course, it may be necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to place restrictions on this right, and existing legislation and Motion B1 allow that, but when it comes to taking away the right to freedom of peaceful assembly completely, by allowing the police to ban people meeting together, we agree with the then Conservative Home Secretary in the other place when the original legislation was passed that that would be an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech. Allowing the police to prevent people peacefully meeting together—to ban political rallies, for example—surely puts us on the slippery slope of the erosion of fundamental human rights and the imposition of a police state. I ask noble Lords to support Motion B1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I say from the outset that these provisions do not enable the police to ban noisy protests. They enable the police to attach conditions to a protest in relation to the generation of noise. That is quite an important distinction. Similarly, Clause 56 does not enable the police to ban assemblies. I simply reiterate that these provisions represent a measured and proportionate rebalancing of people’s rights to protest peacefully with the rights of those whose lives may be unacceptably disrupted by the tactics employed by the minority of protests—such as those by the group Just Stop Oil, whose members believe that their rights and point of view trump everybody else’s.

Setting aside the substance of the amendments, the central issue now before noble Lords is whether it is appropriate to send these amendments back to the Commons for a third time. We have already—quite properly—asked them to reconsider these issues not once but twice. I do not think that asking the same question for a third time will yield a different answer.

On seniority—that is, the rank of a police officer—for an upcoming protest, the chief constable of the relevant force will be responsible for making the decision on whether the threshold is likely to be met. This power can be delegated to an assistant chief constable under Section 15 of the Public Order Act. For a protest that is already in train, the most senior officer at the scene will decide whether the threshold is met; depending on the circumstances, that senior officer would typically be an inspector, chief inspector or superintendent.

With that said, I hope noble Lords will agree to Motions A and B.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

At end insert “and do propose Amendments 80L and 80M to the words so restored, Amendment 80N to Commons Amendment 80A and Amendments 80P, 80Q, 80R, 80S and 80T as consequential amendments—

80L: Page 48, line 14, leave out paragraph (b)

--- Later in debate ---

80T: As an amendment to Commons Amendment 80C, leave out “any” and insert “either””

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg to move.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the real reason that the Minister is facing such anger in this Chamber today that, as everyone knows, the Government did it as a memorandum of understanding—not as a treaty—because they knew that the Rwanda deal would be extremely controversial, and that it would be raised by a number of noble Lords across this Chamber? It is of such significance that it should have been fully debated and discussed in both Chambers. Has it not come to something when a former Conservative Prime Minister stands up and says that this policy would have been found wanting on the grounds of legality, practicality, and efficacy? If the Minister will not listen to noble Lords in here, will she listen to the former Prime Minister? That is why people are so angry: there is a need for proper discussion and not for the Government to find some way of by-passing the process to slip through controversial policies.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone would accuse me of trying to stifle debate or of not trying to answer noble Lords’ questions. I do try to answer them and, if I cannot, I will get back to them. As I said earlier, we are abiding by our international obligations. The EU and the UNHCR work with Rwanda to relocate refugees there.

Ukraine: Refugees

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Her frustration in the examples that she used are shared by many of us.

I, too, praise the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for getting this debate. I join others in saying that she is a phenomenal example to all of us, in being proud of and not forgetting her heritage and in what she has achieved in this country despite the sadness around that. As a former schoolteacher, I think that she would be a fantastic example to many of our schoolchildren in the way she has dealt with the hardship and difficulty that she faced and, in doing so, has moved on in life. Many of us were moved by what she said and it would be incredible for children to hear that sort of thing—particularly when so many people are criss-crossing over countries and seeing terrible things on their television screens. I do not know whether others have had this, but when children and grandchildren are looking at the news, I can only wonder what they are thinking. Talking to them in the way the noble Baroness talked to us is hard but helpful. It was an inspiration to us all and I thank her for it.

I, too, welcome the Minister. As he will know, having been a Member of the other place as I was, it is unusual to congratulate someone on their maiden speech before they have made it, but it will no doubt be wonderful and superb. The reason I know this is that I reread his maiden speech of 26 May 2010 as Member of Parliament for Watford—the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, helped put him there. I say to all noble Lords that it is worth reading; it shows the Minister’s deep care and commitment when he was a Member of Parliament, particularly in the way he spoke about young children. I mention this because, as many noble Lords have said, we are all looking to the Minister’s character. It was demonstrated in that maiden speech and no doubt will be in this; it will give us an example of the character and personality of the man, which will make the difference. We very much look forward to that.

I say to a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, that Her Majesty’s Opposition stand full square behind the Government on the action being taken against the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We support the Government on the military aid that has gone there and the sanctions, as all Members of your Lordships’ House do, as far as I am aware, and wish the Government well. There is not a sliver of paper between any of us on that.

Notwithstanding that, there are serious questions to be asked and answered on the refugee scheme and our various programmes to try to help the people of Ukraine. The Minister will expect us to ask such questions. To put it in perspective, as others have mentioned, 4.2 million refugees have fled Ukraine and 6.5 million people have been displaced internally. It is an astronomical figure. Poland, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, mentioned in her excellent contribution, is one of our closest allies in Europe and 2.5 million displaced refugees have been hosted there. I do not wish it on anyone; can you imagine if 2.5 million people just crossed the border into the UK, driven by war? I know that the British people would welcome them in those circumstances, but it is phenomenal. There are biblical proportions of people being moved around the continent.

What is so refreshing, reassuring and inspiring is the desire of the British people to do their bit and play their part. That is why there is frustration. It is not a normal political criticism of the Government; it is in the sense that we must do our bit, look at what is happening and ensure that we get as many people in need to this country as we can. In that sense, it would be helpful to hear the most up-to-date figures from the Minister. Like many noble Lords, I am sure, I find that if you look at the newspapers and different research papers there are numerous different figures available to us all. Can we have an official outline of the figures?

In the figures I saw, on the Ukraine family scheme 24,400 had been awarded but only hundreds of people have arrived. Can the Minister update us on the figures under the Ukraine family scheme as it is currently constituted? Under Homes for Ukraine, introduced on 14 March, 4,700 visas have been issued but there is a backlog of 27,500, with only 500 having arrived in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, that is just 1.6%. Is that figure right? If it is wrong, what is the correct one? We all need to know.

We have heard tales from numerous noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about red tape, inefficiency, security checks, demands from MI5 and people being unable to get visas and find out what is happening. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, pointed to a particular example, but unfortunately there are many. I have one, which I will draw the Minister’s attention to, of people who have visas and have signed the various documents. They have been told their visas are at the Sheffield office, but they cannot move to get there; the system does not join up. We have heard these tales from the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and from individuals who have contacted me: they have all the reference points and every single piece of documentation has been filled in and completed, but nothing has happened to enable them to move to their sponsor. Of course, there is a need for checks, but the bureaucracy is inefficient and excessive, and we need something to be done about it.

I understand the Minister has set a personal target of 15,000 visas a week being issued and those people presumably then arriving in the UK. When does he expect that target to be reached? Is it true, as reported in the Sun today—this example was given but I cannot remember by whom, maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—that the 24/7 helpline has only 15 staff? This may be why there have been problems getting through. They are working on thousands of calls. If there are only 15 people, working as a rotating system, as they will, it is no wonder people cannot get through. When I looked at this, people were being told to go to the helpline to find out what is happening but, if there are insufficient people working there, nobody will answer the phone. This is another question for the Minister.

This Committee is powerful for the Minister, because we are trying to give him the power to sort this out and do something about it. Is it true, as reported in the Times today, that the Foreign Secretary has clashed with the Home Secretary on clearing the visa backlog? It is either true or it is not. The Foreign Office has said, “Back off, Priti; it’s your problem”. This is not a criticism of the Government, but of what is going on. Is it true or is it not? If it is, can it be sorted out? Is that the reason the Cabinet Secretary has written to all departments telling them to co-operate? All power to the Minister, but nobody should have to tell government departments to co-operate with each other, at a time of national emergency, on refugees fleeing persecution and war. It should just happen.

I just say to the Minister that, if he needs some help sorting out the Foreign Secretary, we will help him. That is not a political statement; the serious point I am trying to make is that this needs to be sorted out. If more staff are needed, the Foreign Secretary should provide them to the Home Secretary to help sort out this problem. That is what your Lordships would expect.

As well as planning for the refugee crisis, on which we have heard from noble Lords, are we supporting and helping local government and local organisations? We have heard reports from the Local Government Association of 144 Ukrainian households presenting as homeless to 57 different councils. I have no idea how those households have arrived in this country, but there is clearly a need to do something about that.

Again, this question has been asked: is the £10,500 grant for one year or for longer? Why does it apply only to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, when those arriving under the family visa scheme will also be a cost to the local area? Is that something the Minister could look at?

I also had the privilege last Saturday of visiting in my own area the brilliant Nottingham branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain. It is working well with Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, but it needs help and support. It is becoming a focal point for Ukrainians in the area who are looking for help and advice. There were a number of children there receiving classes and help. Soon the association will not have enough room for them. Can anything be done to support local councils to ensure that they can offer counselling, education classes and additional support?

We have a courageous, determined Minister who over the past couple of days has clearly shown that he is prepared to speak out, even when it differs from what others in government may say. That is exactly what this situation needs. It does not need someone who says, “Yes, don’t worry” and is worried about upsetting people. It needs someone with the determination and character of the Minister to sort it out. There is a bureaucratic mess and quagmire here that needs to be dealt with, and the Minister is the person to sort it out. The British people want better from their Government, and they are desperate to stand up and offer support to thousands upon thousands of Ukrainian refugees. The people want their Government to step up to the plate, and that is what this Committee is saying to the Minister. Good luck with it.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I shall speak briefly on Motion T1. It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Lords who have spoken to this important matter. One thing we all agree on is that there should be no checks or barriers along the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and certainly there should be no barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an equal assertion. Unfortunately, those of us from a unionist position sometimes feel that the concentration is very much on the north-south dimension and that the east-west dimension is almost forgotten or people call for the rigorous implementation of checks, which is a bizarre position to adopt when there has been so much passion. I agree with those who have argued that there should be no checks between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and vice versa.

As someone who lives just about 15 miles from the border, I understand the concerns. However, there are a couple of myths that need to be dispelled. First, we are talking about an international border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. It is a different jurisdiction for currency, taxation and fiscal rules. For goodness’ sake, even the road signs change from kilometres to miles. We have different voting systems. All these things matter, and it is wrong to dismiss the guarantees and agreements that were made in the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, because it enshrined the principle of consent and that the people of Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom so long as they voted that way.

The second thing to say gently to the House is that there were checks for immigration on the UK side and on the Irish Republic side of the border—not at the border because nobody wants to stay at the border—even before we left the European Union. I am looking at a tweet put out by the Garda and PSNI in 2018, which eulogises and praises a checkpoint near the Monaghan/Armagh border seeking those in breach of immigration law. There are many other examples we could give. Eight illegal immigrants were caught at a checkpoint in Dundalk just across the Irish border by the Garda Síochána after travelling via England and Northern Ireland. These checks are not done at the border but they are intelligence-led, so it is wrong to suggest that somehow any checks are contrary to the spirit of the Belfast agreement because that is exactly the sort of regime that will apply going forward as it did previously.

The final thing I will say, very briefly, is that—as I mentioned at the start—we must have the same considerations and the same passion and desire to avoid problems against the spirit of the Belfast agreement which has been evoked today and we must ensure that it applies east-west for strand 3 as it does for strand 2. In June 2021, the European Union, as published by the DAERA department in January of this year, was complaining to the UK Government that ferry passengers coming from Great Britain into Larne or Belfast, where there is no border at all—British citizens moving from one part of the United Kingdom to the other—were not having their luggage checked. If anything illustrated the detriment to tourism, for instance, which has been mentioned in this regard, there is an example.

Issues have been raised about people getting access to health and the protocol’s effect on medicines for UK citizens and Irish citizens coming from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. There are barriers to that, yet we do not hear the same concerns. All I am pleading for is balance and equivalence. If checks are wrong north-south, they are wrong east-west.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Motion L1 in my name and, briefly, to some of the other amendments before us. I congratulate the Government on Motion A and welcome the movement from them with respect to the Chagossian community—the Minister deserves credit for persuading the Government to move on that, as does my noble friend Lady Lister and many others for the campaign to advance this cause and issue. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, was right also to point out the efforts of Henry Smith MP who has worked exceedingly hard on this issue.

There will be a number of disagreements between us as we debate this Bill today, as well as many challenges to the Government and pushback—if that is the right phrase to use in the context of this Bill—asking the Government to think again. It shows the importance of how the Lords works to ask the Government to revise their legislation. This is an example of where the Government have responded positively to the various concerns that have been expressed. This shows Parliament at its best and, hopefully, with respect to other issues that I and other noble Lords will raise through our amendments, we will see the same happen elsewhere before the Bill becomes an Act.

On Motions B and B1, the deprivation of citizenship in certain cases, with proper safeguards, is an important tool of our national security. We do not believe that the Government have made the case for the suggested powers under Clause 9 to remove citizenship without giving notice. It remains our preference that the clause should be removed altogether; however, it is clear the debate has moved on from this. In that light, we strongly welcome that there has at least been some movement to introduce safeguards. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, whose work has improved the clause and has added much-needed safeguards into the process.

However, Motion B1 from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raises further extremely important questions about Clause 9. I ask again: is it not the case that the Government must reissue existing deprivation orders that were made without notice under the processes now defined by—what I would call—the Anderson amendments? If a person is currently subject to a deprivation order but they have not been notified of that, when do their appeal rights start and finish? Can the Minister provide clarity on this? There are a number of questions and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is quite right to point out through her Motion the various problems that still exist, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness with respect to her Motion B1.

On Motion L and my Motion L1, the proposed arrival offence makes arriving in the UK to seek asylum a criminal act. We feel really strongly about this, as indeed your Lordships did. The Commons reason for disagreeing with the Lords over this offence is that

“the Commons consider that it should be a criminal offence for a person who requires entry clearance to knowingly arrive in the United Kingdom without such clearance.”

But do the Government genuinely believe that a person arriving in the UK and asking for sanctuary is a criminal act? That is what is suggested by this offence. At the same time, Ministers have repeatedly stated that they do not intend it to be used in all circumstances to which it applies.

A specific example of what we are talking about came up last week in the debate in the other place when considering a Ukrainian who had fled to the UK to join their family in the first few days after the appalling Russian invasion to escape the bombing and destruction of their home, but who had not completed a lengthy visa process. Under the Government’s proposals, that Ukrainian person would have been guilty of a criminal offence and liable to up to four years in prison. That is surely not what the Government want, but that would be the consequence of their Bill as drafted. Therefore, although that is a very emotive example to give because we all feel so passionately about that, that is exactly what the Bill does. That cannot be right.

The Government say that we need to ensure that there are safe and legal routes, and much of this has been driven by what has happened with respect to migrants crossing the channel. As Damian Green MP, a former Immigration Minister, asked of the Government,

“Home Office data confirms that 87% of those arriving by small boats in 2021 comprised nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen,”—[Official Report, Commons; 22/3/22; col. 199.]

but what safe route is open to them? I know the Government’s answer is that they should stop in the first country in which it is safe for them to do so, but if 87% are from those four countries—as the Home Office data itself says—what difference does the criminalisation of the offence of arrival make? The Bill does not make sense in this regard.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, as I say, Ministers have repeatedly said that this offence is intended to be prosecuted only in specific cases, such as where a person arrives in the UK in breach of a deportation order. If the Government’s intention is for those cases to be prosecuted, they should pass a law which says that. That is why we have tabled our amendment in lieu: to do just that. We have listened to Ministers and what they are seeking to achieve and have actually tried to find a way through. So, our Amendment 13B would provide a specific offence of arriving in the UK in breach of a deportation order. It is an example of the type of specific offence that Ministers can put into the Bill to achieve their desired outcomes. The Commons reason regarding the offence as drafted does not reflect the assurances or the policy intent expressed to both Houses by Ministers. For that reason, we believe that further action is needed on the issue—hence my Motion L1.

On Motions M and M1, the Government have ended up in a position where a person who saves lives at sea without co-ordination of that rescue attempt by the coastguard risks committing an offence. The Government’s answer is that a rescuer in that situation will have a full defence that they have gone to the aid of people in distress, which they are duty bound to do under international law. I accept that the change is not intended to lead to the prosecution of anyone who rescues lives at sea, and we recognise that the Government have moved some way during consideration of the Bill to put beyond doubt that a coastguard co-ordinated rescue is not in the scope of the offence. But we are still left with an unsatisfactory outcome and a lack of clarity on what should be included in the scope of the offence. We have this problem throughout the Bill, and this is yet another example of an offence capturing behaviour that should not be captured. The Bill does not clarify the position and the Government so far refuse in many instances to give us the clarity we need.

Turning to Amendment 20, tabled by my noble friend Lord Rosser, regrettably, we do not believe that there is more to be gained by insisting on sending it back to the Commons a further time. But the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, perfectly highlights the remaining issue and would be a simple and sensible addition to the Bill. We support it, and we ask the Minister to consider it seriously.

On Motions T and T1, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Murphy and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, there is a real problem here, notwithstanding the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. We have been raising this issue for months; the border is still an afterthought, and we are seeking to clear the issue up at this juncture. The problem is that the proposed approach is not only unworkable but does not reflect the reality of those who live and work on the border at all.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

Leave out from “Amendments” to end and insert “13, 14 and 16 to 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A, 14A and 16A to 19A, do insist on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13—

13B: Page 40, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
“(D1) A person who knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order commits an offence.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Lister. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of the General Dental Council. In that capacity, I had a meeting with the British Dental Association earlier today, not specifically about this issue, but the British Dental Association is still very exercised by it.

I again pursue an issue I raised on Report, to which I have not seen a satisfactory response: the precise terms under which consent will be known to exist in respect of certain scientific procedures being carried out. For example, if there is to be a dental X-ray, will freely given consent be obtained from the individuals concerned? By “freely given” I mean not under duress. The reality is that young people who are fearful of not having their rights accepted are hardly likely to give their consent willingly. Can the Minister tell us exactly how we can be reassured that that consent will be freely given and that it will genuinely be the case that if somebody does not give consent that will not be in some way held against them elsewhere? The reason why this matters is that for a professional, whether a dental professional or any other professional, to carry out a medical procedure, including a dental X-ray, without that free consent is unethical and against all professional standards. It is an extremely important point.

Can we also have clarity about whether it will always be an appropriate professional who will carry out the necessary scientific assessment? If, for example, someone employed by the Home Office or some other agency carries out an X-ray or whatever without being an appropriate professional, that is a criminal offence. I would really like clarity on whether the Government have thought through these ethical and professional issues in terms of these clauses and in rejecting the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House that was moved on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, before I move on to Part 5, I will speak briefly to Motion N1 on Part 4 and age assessments. I support the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and supported by my noble friend Lady Lister. I pay tribute to them for their work on this issue.

In the Commons, the Conservative MP Peter Aldous raised the concerns we have just heard of the British Dental Association on ethical, health and accuracy grounds about using X-rays for age assessment purposes. In response, the Minister could not even give a commitment that a dentist would be included on the planned oversight committee for the policy, as my noble friend Lady Lister has just pointed out. It seems to me that what is being asked is perfectly reasonable and moderate: that before a method is approved as somehow being scientific, advice is taken by experts in the field. It is remarkable that these concerns have to be raised.

I will concentrate my remarks on Part 5, but first I declare my interest as a research fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation.

I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for pointing out, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have done, that it is quite remarkable that a series of changes to the modern slavery legislation is included in an immigration Act. That is unbelievable. I say to Conservative Members, indeed to all Members of this House, that the Modern Slavery Act 2015—I got it out and read it again—is a signpost piece of legislation of which we are all proud, and one of the legacies of Prime Minister Theresa May.

Throughout our debates and in the amendments that we are debating now, we are trying to improve a piece of legislation that should not be in here—but, having said that, we will try to improve it. For example, the House voted to remove Clause 58 in its entirety from the Bill. There was recognition of the dangers of penalising a victim for not meeting a deadline to disclose information. It can be difficult for a victim to even recognise themselves as a victim, let alone to process and communicate that trauma to a deadline.

The Bill provides that credibility will not be damaged where a person has a good reason for late compliance, but we struggled throughout the Bill to get certainty on what counts as a good reason. It was our belief that the authorities should not be instructed to consider a victim’s credibility damaged because they might have disclosed information about what they had been subject to—human trafficking, exploitation or modern slavery—a little late.

Therefore, we strongly welcome the step taken by the Government today to exempt at least child victims from this clause; we welcome the amendment that the Minister has just brought before us. I recognise that the Government have listened to some of the concerns raised and have moved some way on this issue. We are grateful to them for that. For that reason, we will not seek to vote again on Clause 58 today, since we have narrowed our focus to, as the Minister pointed out, key issues where there is still need for further movement from the Government.

This leads us to Motions S and S1, which focus in greater detail on child victims of trafficking. We are talking about children here, and my Amendment 27B would put in the Bill that the best interests of the child must be primary in all decisions about child victims. I do not understand why that is not a reasonable thing to include in the Bill. Also, it would not allow slavery and trafficking notices to be served on a victim under the age of 18. You could have a child of 12 or 13, or even younger, being given an information notice to be complied with—not late notice now; they will not be penalised for that—and being required to present an information notice about the circumstances of their trafficking. It is ridiculous that we are asking children to do that.

My amendment would also exempts children from restrictions under Clauses 61 and 62, so that they have access to additional recovery periods if they are re-trafficked and are not covered by public order provisions. It would provide that child victims can have leave to remain, to give them time to access support as well as supporting prosecutions against their traffickers. Finally, it would ensure that the burden of proof for a child victim to enter the NRM is not heightened by the Bill, so that no extra barriers are put in place to a child victim being recognised by the system.

It is worth pointing out again that child victims constituted 43% of the referrals to the NRM. That is what we are talking about—nearly a majority of those referred to the NRM were children. The Office for National Statistics says that, in the UK, 24,675 children have been referred to the NRM since 2009—a frankly unbelievable figure. That is why it is so important that, although the Government have moved on this, there must be more done to protect children and child victims of trafficking.

Our original Amendment 27 provided that a trafficking notice could not be served where a person had experienced exploitation while they were under 18. In the Commons, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, said when a trafficking notice was served on a person the precise timeline or date of their exploitation would not be known, so it would not be possible to exempt people based on when their exploitation took place. In light of that, we have amended subsection (2) of our proposed new clause to specify that a trafficking notice cannot be served on a person under the age of 18. In these cases, there is no question that the exploitation took place while this person was a child, because they are still under 18 years of age.

Another argument put forward by the Minister in the Commons is that our clause provides protection for children yet not for other victims. Of course, we are seeking to provide specific protection for children; that is the responsible way to make law. It is crucial to recognise that the Government have now moved to exempt children in respect of Clause 58 so that, as I have said, they will not be penalised. That is important for two reasons. I am hugely grateful to the Minister for the concession; it also shows that the Government now accept that in certain cases it is right to recognise child victims for what they are—exploited, traumatised children—and to exempt them from the provisions of this part. We do that in every area of law; we provide differently for children than for adults. It is important that we do the same with respect to modern slavery; we are asking the Government for further concessions on that.

It is most important that we resolve the part relating to Motions Q and Q1 as well. The anti-slavery commissioner has said that the Government’s proposals make it harder to prosecute people traffickers. The Government recognise that it is common for victims to be criminally exploited and so have a criminal record as part of their exploitation. Our replacement for Clause 62 therefore seeks to protect children and adults—all victims of slavery—against being penalised for having been at some point criminally exploited.

The key issue raised by Ministers about our original amendment is that it did not provide a definition of who could be considered a threat to public order. So, our Amendment 25B provides that a person is considered a threat if they have been convicted of a terrorism offence; it also requires the Secretary of State to consult within a year on whether further offences listed under Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act should be added to this definition. In other words, we have made an important concession in that we understand the need for a definition and that the Home Office is debating what that definition should be. Rather than hold up the Bill, let us have a situation where, within one year of this Act coming into force, the Government must come forward with a consultation on whether a person convicted of any offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorism offence, should be considered as presenting

“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”.

We have tried to be reasonable, but we say to the Government again that excluding victims of trafficking from the NRM on the basis that at some point they have had a minor conviction for a crime does not recognise the reality of the situation in which these victims find themselves.

To conclude on this, I say to the Minister that if he were a victim of slavery, he, like me, would in many instances be forced into criminal action. As it stands, the Bill will penalise those people and prevent them from getting the support that should be given to them under the NRM. That is not acceptable. It is not in the spirit of the Modern Slavery Act, nor what the Government themselves would want to happen.

Finally, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he has done on this over so many years. It is an important amendment; frankly, it is disappointing and unbelievable that the Government have not accepted his effort to ensure that people get the support they deserve for 12 months. I hope that your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord McColl, as we will, if it comes to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 25B in lieu—

25B: Leave out Clause 62 and insert the following new Clause—
“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.
(2) A competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60 of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—
(a) as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order, or
(b) because the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.
(3) For the purposes of section (2)(a), a person is considered as presenting an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order where the person has been convicted of a terrorist offence.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within one year of this Act coming into force—
(a) prepare and publish a consultation on whether a person convicted of any offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorist offence, should be considered as presenting an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order for the purposes of section (2)(a); and
(b) lay a response to the consultation before each House of Parliament.
(5) In subsection (3), “terrorist offence” means any of the following (whenever committed)—
(a) an offence listed in—
(i) Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code (terrorism offences: England and Wales), or
(ii) Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (terrorism offences: Scotland and Northern Ireland);
(b) an offence that was determined to have a terrorist connection under—
(i) section 69 of the Sentencing Code (in the case of an offender sentenced in England and Wales), or
(ii) section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Northern Ireland, or an offender sentenced in England and Wales before the Sentencing Code applied);
(c) an offence that has been proved to have been aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection under section 31 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Scotland).
(6) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—
(a) in exceptional circumstances,
(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed, and
(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
(7) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—
(a) a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights,
(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention, or
(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
(8) For the purposes of a determination under subsection (2)(b) victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.
(9) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstance where—
(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery, or
(b) any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.
(10) This section does not apply where the person is under 18 years at the time of the referral.
(11) Nothing in this section affects the application of section 60(2).””

--- Later in debate ---

Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S)

[Lord Coaker]

Moved by

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 27B in lieu—

27B: Insert the following new Clause—“Slavery and human trafficking: victims aged under 18 years (1) Where a competent authority is making a decision in relation to a person who is aged under 18 years, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration.(2) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on a person who is aged under 18 years. (3) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either the first reasonable grounds decision or a further reasonable grounds decision made in relation to a person relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.(4) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made in respect of a person which relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.(5) The Secretary of State must grant a person leave to remain in the United Kingdom where a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person who—(a) is under 18 years, or (b) was under 18 years at the time of the incident or incidents to which the positive reasonable grounds decision relates.(6) Guidance issued under section 49(1)(c) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking must provide that, where the determination relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years, the determination must be made on the standard of “suspect but not prove”.””

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 31st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to a couple of the other Motions before I speak to Motion C1 in my name. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker on securing the government amendment and moving the Government away from their position and coming forward with an amendment. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Rooker’s work: he has been an example to us all about how to change legislation. But, to be fair to the Government as well, it was good to see them responding sensibly to the points that my noble friend made; they deserve some credit for seeing sense.

On the important work that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has done with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and many others on misogyny and other associated issues, I say that he is another example to us all of how to give bring about change. The Minister’s comments at the Dispatch Box today show real progress with respect to that. All of us will want to see the progress that is made, and I was particularly struck by the way that the Minister said that she would keep the House updated. That is particularly important, and I thank her for that.

This is a hugely important issue. Many promises have been made over a number of years and perhaps now, given the horror of some of the things that have happened over recent times, maybe this is a sea-change moment when we will see real progress made—so I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and many others.

We support Motion D1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is crucial in opposing the Government’s noise provisions as it removes the proposed noise trigger for public assemblies. On the wider question of police powers to put conditions on static protests, this new version of the clause proposed by the noble Lord responds to the concerns raised by Ministers and proposes a compromise in line with the JCHR—but I will leave the noble Lord to say more about his own Motion D1 and I look forward to hearing it.

My Motion C1 maintains our previous position that the noise trigger should be removed in full. Our Amendments 73 and 87 remove the Government’s proposed noise trigger, which would allow the police to put conditions on marches or one-person protests which get not “noisy” but “too noisy”. The Government have still not made the case that the power is proportionate, and the more we ask, the less they seem to know about how it could possibly work in practice. For example, the government Amendments 73C and 87H on “serious unease” show that the Government are still in a hole and still digging in recognising that there are problems with the definition of what “too noisy” means.

To indulge noble Lords for just a few minutes, the new subsection inserted by Clause 56(5) has the wording that

“it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.”

The Government propose to take out “serious unease”: that is the compromise. We welcome the word “unease” going, but, of course the Government have also taken out “serious”, so we now have a situation where they have lowered the threshold as a compromise—which is a ridiculous point to arrive at and just the shows the confusion.

As noble Lords know, it is really important to read the background notes to all of this. I thought that I must be reading an old version, but it is dated 28 February 2022, so it is updated. The policy paper is entitled Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: Protest Powers Factsheet. The Minister in the other place said that it did not matter that “serious” was missed out, because actually everyone knows that it still means serious, even though it has been taken out of the Bill. So I refer to the background. The policy paper was published by the Government on 28 February. I will use it as an example of the hole that the Government are in in trying to define “too noisy”. They cannot do it. There are breaches of the peace as it stands already—but anyway, let me read this:

“This power can only be used when the police reasonably believe that the noise from the protest may cause serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or cause a significant impact on people in the vicinity of the protest. ‘Impact’ is defined as intimidation, harassment, serious unease”—


which will be taken out, which is fine, but the Government’s own background paper says

“serious alarm, or serious distress with the police then having to consider whether the impact is significant.”

So the background policy paper published by the Home Office is now out of step with the amendment that the Government propose to the Bill. “Serious” is no longer there, so, instead of having “serious unease” and in the same sentence “alarm or distress”—in other words, “serious unease, serious alarm or serious distress”—that has been taken out.

Now I am not an expert on these things, but I would say to noble Lords that I would expect in court that serious distress would be more serious than just distress. Now I am not a genius, but I am also sure that if I were in a court and said that it is serious alarm, that would be a higher threshold than alarm. I may be wrong: I leave that to others to judge. But that is the compromise that the Government have come forward with.

In other words, to come forward with me saying all the things that I will come on to in a minute about other things, they are saying, “We’ve got to say something else, Coaker will be off again”. Well, I am, because it does not make sense. I am using humour to demonstrate a really serious point. By legislating in this way the Government show that they do not know what they are doing on “too noisy”. Instead of retreating in a managed, orderly way, they are panicking—“What do we do? How do we do something? We’ve got to say something”—and they come up with this in such haste that they do not think it through properly and they take the word “serious” out, as well as “unease”. I just say to noble Lords, “It just goes on”.

Of course, we then had the famous double-glazing incident, which many noble Lords said to me afterwards could not be true. I just referred them to the guidance. They went away and read it and said, “Goodness me, it does say double-glazing.” I thought the Government might retreat on double-glazing. For those noble Lords who were not here, for it to be too noisy, there are certain thresholds the Government have laid out, so we can understand what “too noisy” may be. So, for example, it says

“A noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold”.


So, I posed the question that, therefore, what you would need to do if you were having a demonstration and were going to make a lot of noise would be to look at the street, or the area you were going to be in, and look for double-glazing. You could make sure, because if you were demonstrating in a street with double-glazing, you would be fine, even if you made too much noise. However, if you went down an older street that did not have double-glazing, then you would be in trouble.

I had to read it a few times. I actually read it to my wife and said, “Have I misread this?” She said no. But it is such a serious point: this is what we are asking the police to use. In demonstrations in future, the police will be asked to consider whether a demonstration is too noisy on the basis of the number of houses that have double-glazing. Unbelievable.

I thought the Government would retreat, and then it somehow got into the Times, and it must have been a great headline for the Government—they must have been really pleased—

“Police and crime bill: Noisy protests to be silenced by double glazing inspections.”


That was the headline in the Times of 25 March, if noble Lords missed it. That must have made interesting reading in the Home Office. I would have liked to have been the Minister going to report to the Home Secretary on that. “Who signed it off?” was the question I always asked. I thought the Home Office would retreat, but no. So that is the headline for the article: the double- glazing.

I stress again that I am trying, through humour, to make a really serious point about how noisy is too noisy. So, here we go again. I do not know about noble Lords, but I would have retreated. I am sure the Minister would have retreated as well, had it been up to her—I will leave her to answer that—but instead, listen to this, from the Times.

“The Home Office defended the guidance, insisting that it was one of many considerations that the police may have to take into account … ‘It is perfectly reasonable to suggest the type and construction of a building targeted would impact on the level of outside noise that penetrates through’.”


So we are now getting into the thickness of walls—old buildings, sound-proofed or not—and so it goes on. We have gone from double-glazing to the thickness of walls as to where we can demonstrate.

I highlight again that definition bedevils legislation—I accept that—but we have to be really careful with “too noisy”. Where will it apply? This is something that needs proper investigation. Other hypothetical situations where the “too noisy” provisions would not apply, as well as where there is a lot of double-glazing, would be where a protest

“only lasts a short amount of time”.

You can make as much noise as you want as long as it only lasts a short amount of time. The guidance says that

“the same amount of noise over several days”

might be an issue. So, if you do it for six days, you are all right, but if you do it for several days, you have a problem.

Then listen to this:

“A noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold”.


So the towns are going to be excluded from the “too noisy” provisions. Again, how are the police going to decide what a town centre is? It does not include London, presumably, because that is a city, but does it include a suburb of a city? If it goes into the suburbs of London, is that a town centre? In Nottingham, we call lots of the suburbs “towns”. What is a town centre? It does not apply there. Somebody said to me, “I thought the Government’s levelling-up agenda was about including towns”, but a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold.

I have given those examples of the guidance the Minister has had to show that the Government are in real trouble on “too noisy”. What the Government are asking us to do is to pass a piece of legislation that has a provision in it that is unworkable, ill-defined, illogical and will not work. That is not the job of legislators. There is controversy, there is difficulty, there is difference of opinion, but silliness and ridiculous legislation is not acceptable.

I just say to finish, before I move to Motion C1, that I know and accept that the Government do not want to ban protest—it is ridiculous to suggest that the Government are against any protest; I do not believe that. Nor do I believe that the Government really want to undermine the ability of people to protest, but I do say this: we should erode that right, even with the application of certain conditions, only with very serious care.

Many people, including me, have protested time and time again, and conditions have been put on those marches. A number of noble Lords have been in Governments that have been the victims of massive demonstrations—I am talking about legal ones. No Government in the past have ever sought to restrict demonstrations on the basis that they make too much noise. Margaret Thatcher did not do it; John Major did not do it; David Cameron did not do it; Theresa May did not do it; why on earth are we doing it now? It will not work; this condition is anti-democratic and it sends a signal to people that is unacceptable. It is an infringement of people’s democratic right to protest and we should reject it again.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Motion D1 is in my name, but I shall take the Motions in order. On Motion A, we are pleased the Government have decided to give the Food Standards Agency the Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers that it is seeking.

On Motion B, we do not see the Government’s amendments in lieu, Amendments 72C and 72D, to be any kind of concession, in that the Government are duty-bound to respond to the Law Commission report on hate crimes in any event. We support the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in his Motion B1, Amendments 72E and 72F, that police forces should be forced to record or flag offences aggravated by sex or gender by means of primary legislation set out in the Bill as this is the only practical way to ensure 43 autonomous chief constables comply.

I am not quite sure about the Minister’s arguments about the complexity around sex and gender: in relation to hate crime, it matters not whether the victim is somebody born a woman or is a trans woman, only whether the assailant believed that the victim was a woman and was motivated by hatred of women. I fear the Government are just looking for excuses. Having said that, misogyny is a problem in the police and in society as a whole, and we do need urgent action. With the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and Stella Creasy MP on the case, progress may be slow, but it is inevitable.

On Motion C, the so-called noise trigger in relation to processions, it is very difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on that issue, but we agree with his Motion C1 that the noise trigger should not be part of the Bill in relation to processions or static protests, as I will come to in a moment in relation to Motion D. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said when we last considered it, these measures are not sensible or practical. I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that the larger the protest, the more popular the cause, the more likely the protest is to be noisy and therefore the more likely it is to be banned. Only a very unpopular cause, which is not going to be as noisy, will go ahead, if we are not careful.

As Liberty has pointed out in its useful briefing, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the body whose report is relied on by the Government to justify the measures in Part 3, did not examine or support the establishment of a noise trigger. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for public order did not reference or advocate for a new power based on the noise that protests generate. I repeat, outside London—where the chief police officer and her deputy are appointed by the Home Secretary—the majority of police forces said police officer numbers were the limiting factor in effectively policing protests, not a lack of legislation.

On my Motion D1, Amendments 80J and 80G, we continue to be concerned about what the then Conservative Home Secretary said about the difference between processions and assemblies when the original public order legislation was debated in the other place. He believed that giving the police the power to ban an assembly would be an excessive limit on the human rights of assembly and freedom of speech.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 73, 74B, 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F, 74G and 87, do insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendments 74A, 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 73C and 87H”

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard - Part 2
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motions F, F1, F2, G, H, H1 and N.

I shall begin with Amendment 143, as I believe that there is a large measure of agreement across the House on the need to better protect schools and vaccination centres from disruptive protests that take place outside such locations. The Government have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for introducing fast-tracked public spaces protection orders on a case-by-case basis.

Amendments 143A to 143C are similar to Amendment 143. They make provision for expedited PSPOs, which local authorities can apply to public places around schools, and to vaccine and test-and-trace centres, for up to six months. As with the original amendment, an expedited PSPO would need to be made with the consent of the relevant chief officer of police and, as the case may be, the appropriate authority for the school or NHS body in question. The local authority would then be required to consult on the expedited PSPO once it was in place. These amendments in lieu were welcomed by the shadow Policing Minister in the Commons, and I hope they will be similarly accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others.

It is the Government’s view that we must balance the rights of protesters to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly with the rights of non-protestors who might be adversely affected by a protest. Part 3 of this Bill has always been about a modest resetting of that balance, and it firmly remains our view that the provisions in Clauses 55, 56 and 61, which Amendments 73, 80 and 87 seek wholly or partly to expunge, should remain part of the Bill.

Noble Lords will recall that Amendments 73 and 87 relate to measures that would enable the police to attach conditions to a protest in circumstances relating to the generation of noise. As I have said to the House before, but it is worth saying again, we expect the vast majority of protests to be unaffected by these provisions. It is exceptional for the police to attach any conditions to a protest, and that will not change. Of course, protests are generally by their nature noisy; their purpose is to advance a particular cause. These measures do not prevent noisy protests, but the Government continue to believe that it is completely unacceptable that a small minority of protestors can, through the use of amplification equipment or other means, impose disruption and misery upon the public through the excessive noise they generate. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, put it well in Committee:

“We have to consider its effect on people, where it is either so loud or so persistent that it cannot be ignored.”—[Official Report, 24/11/21; col. 944.]


If we accept that there must be limitations on egregious noise in other contexts—that is why local authorities have noise abatement powers—the same principle should apply in the context of a protest where the level of noise becomes injurious to others.

Amendment 80 would remove Clause 56. This clause would enable the police to attach any type of condition to a public assembly, in the same way that they can attach any type of condition to a public procession. The distinction between processions and assemblies no longer reflects the contemporary realities of policing protests over three and a half decades after the Public Order Act was enacted. This point has forcefully been made both by the national policing lead for public order, Chief Constable Harrington, and by Her Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary. We should recognise their expertise in this regard and accept that the 1986 Act needs to be updated.

Turning to Amendments 81 and 82, I am grateful for the further opportunity I have had to discuss them with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. The noble Viscount has made a powerful point that the Palace of Westminster is the symbolic representation of our vibrant democracy and that it must be open to those who want to do so to protest in the vicinity of these Houses of Parliament. I want again to reassure the House that Clause 58 will not have the effect that some noble Lords have feared.

Since our last debate, we have discussed this further with the Greater London Authority, which has categorically confirmed that, were Clause 58 in its original form to be enacted, it will continue to authorise rallies and protests, as it currently does, on the GLA-managed area of Parliament Square Garden.

Since I had the opportunity to discuss this further with the noble Viscount last week, my officials have also been in touch with the Metropolitan Police, and it has similarly confirmed that the provisions in Clause 58 do not affect its ability to manage large protests of 5,000 people or more within Parliament Square. I should stress that it is not the function of the Metropolitan Police to authorise or otherwise protests in the vicinity of Parliament but to exercise its powers under the Public Order Act to attach conditions to a protest. The Metropolitan Police has also reassured us that, as with other public order powers, it will use this new power of direction only in a manner that is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the rights of individuals to engage in peaceful protest.

As we are talking about the Houses of Parliament, I think this might be a good moment to reflect on the death of PC Palmer, five years ago today. I cannot believe it was five years ago, but it is. We pay tribute to him for the way he tried to protect the Palace when he was murdered.

Finally, moving to Amendment 88, this is a watered-down version of the Government’s plan to increase the maximum penalty for the existing offence of obstructing a highway. It is vital that we protect all our roads from the disruptive and damaging actions that we have seen some protestors employ in recent months. Limiting this increase to the strategic road network only, which excludes most A roads, as well as more minor roads, as this amendment seeks to do, would allow individuals to continue to block our roads without facing the appropriate sanction. I should stress that we are increasing the maximum penalty for this offence. It would continue to be for the court to decide the appropriate sentence in any particular case, and I would expect the sentence imposed to reflect the harm caused.

We have listened to and reflected on the concerns raised by noble Lords on Report. As is entirely proper, this House asked the other place to think again. It has now done so. The elected House has now endorsed, not once but twice, the provisions in the Bill enabling the police to attach conditions to a protest relating to the generation of noise. The elected House has also disagreed, following separate Divisions, with the Lords amendments relating to the policing of assemblies and protests in the vicinity of Parliament. We have done our duty as a revising Chamber, but now that the Commons has clearly expressed its view, I put it to the House that it is time to let this Bill pass. I commend the Commons reasons and amendments to the House.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Coaker]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” and insert “do insist on its Amendment 73, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 74A and propose Amendment 74B to Lords Amendment 74 in lieu and Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G as consequential amendments, and do insist on its Amendment 87 and disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F—

74B: Leave out lines 20 to 26


74C: As an amendment to Lords Amendment 75, leave out “any of subsections (2ZA) to (2ZC)” and insert “subsection (2ZA) or (2ZB)”


74D: As an amendment to Lords Amendment 76, leave out “any” and insert “either”


74E: As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, leave out lines 36 and 37


74F: As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, line 40, leave out “an expression mentioned in subsection 12(a) or (b)” and insert “that expression”


74G: As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, leave out lines 44 and 45

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join the Minister in her tribute to PC Keith Palmer and in the sentiments she expressed, which will be shared by all of us across this House. As he protected us, he protected our democracy. As ever, we are grateful to PC Palmer for his sacrifice and for the sacrifice of so many others. I am pleased to join the Minister in her tribute.

This is an extremely important group of amendments. I thank the Minister for her thoughtful reply, even though I am going to disagree with some of it. I appreciate the comments she made and the way in which she made them.

This morning, on my walk into Parliament, knowing that we were going to discuss the issue of protests, I went to the gardens next to us and stood next to the tribute to the Pankhursts. I went across into Parliament Square to see Gandhi, Millicent Fawcett and Mandela. I wonder what they would say to us today as we discuss these amendments. I know the Government’s response will be that this is a different time, but that is irrelevant; or that this is an age that has amplifications, as we heard from the Minister, and they were not dealing with that. I suspect that, in their time, the Suffragettes, Mandela, Gandhi and all of those sorts of people were subject to being told that they were too extreme and were going too far.

I say to the Minister that this is a fundamental principle. I say again that I do not believe that the Minister wants to ban protests. I accept that. I am not saying that we have a Government who want to completely ban protests, completely end demonstrations and completely end the right to protest. I do not believe that. What I believe is that the Bill in certain ways undermines certain conditions which have always applied to people’s ability to protest.

The Government have got themselves in a right mess on this, as I will demonstrate, with respect to noise, which is the particular focus of the amendments that I want to point out. Let me quote from the Government’s own website, on thresholds. Our Amendments 73 and 87 would remove the Government’s proposed noise trigger which would allow the police to put conditions on marches or one-person protests that get too noisy. The problem is this: what on earth does too noisy mean? I would not like to debate that. One person’s too noisy is another person’s not noisy enough; some people get irritated by not very much noise and some people get irritated by no noise at all.

I went to the Government’s website for clarification on what too noisy means. When making use of these powers, the website helpfully gives advice for deciding what is too noisy. These are the thresholds that have to be met: who is impacted and how many people, which is fair enough, though it does not define it; who is vulnerable; and the duration of the impact. It very helpfully says that, if it is a short time, it is unlikely to meet the threshold. Presumably even if a protest is too noisy, if it is not for very long it is okay, because it is unlikely to meet the threshold.

The next threshold shows how ridiculous things are. Presumably a Minister has passed this; when I was in the Home Office, a Minister had to sign these things off—somebody has. If a protest is outside a building with double-glazing, it is not likely to have the same impact as if it is outside a building that does not have double-glazing. Double-glazing is a threshold now. If you are organising a demonstration, and if you are going to be noisy, you need to find areas where the buildings have double-glazing—that is what it actually says. I tell you, this will be a good advert for the double-glazing companies. It actually says on the Government’s own website that, if the protest is outside a building with double-glazing, it is not likely to have the same impact.

The serious point I am making is that you can see the problems the Government are having in trying to define what they mean by “too noisy”. As soon as you do that, you disappear down a hole. There is an old phrase, “If you are in a hole stop digging”. The Government are still digging.

The Minister berates the Opposition but the Government have not even convinced their own MPs. I will quote just two. Robert Jenrick, who was a Cabinet Minister until a few months ago, wondered

“whether the Government are going too far in this respect.”

He does not answer his own question but I think it answers itself. Steve Baker MP said:

“Let us say to the Government that actually this is going too far”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/22; cols. 838 and 848.]

Somebody else made the point that Margaret Thatcher introduced the Public Order Act in 1986, which did not say anything about noise. John Major, following the poll tax protests, did not do anything about noise, and neither did David Cameron or Theresa May. But now we have a situation where being too noisy is regarded as something that it is important for the Government to legislate on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot see anyone trying to get up. If they are doing, they are probably behind me; do not encourage them. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we always keep all legislation under review. The Minister in the other place, in saying that, was not saying anything unusual.

I am glad that I give the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the opportunity to vent at every piece of legislation that I bring into this House, because we are friends and I feel that it is some form of therapy for her. I do not know why she was picking out the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for not supporting her, but that is probably a side issue that I do not know anything about. She talked about reading the public mood, and I will get on to that and the facts behind the public mood shortly; I warn her that she will not like it. About Putin’s Russia, or indeed Ukraine, I do not want to make a cheap point but I see the point about democracy. The people of Ukraine or Russia will look at this Parliament and realise how very lucky we are that we can not only argue but shout at each other and the majority wins. Noble Lords will be particularly pleased because there is generally a majority against the Government in this place.

Amendments 143A to 143C provide for the expedited public spaces protection orders. I am glad that they find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. In doing so, clearly he makes the distinction between noise generally, noisy protests and noise that is injurious to others, as evidenced by his amendments.

I welcome the noble Lord’s acceptance of the decision taken by the other place in relation to the increase in the maximum penalty for the offence of obstructing a highway as reflected in Amendment 88A. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, takes a different view, but I hope she will not press Motion H1, given that the courts are able to take into account the level of disruption when sentencing for this offence.

I know the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is not in his place, but I want to make the point that we have had a very constructive discussion on Amendments 81 and 82. I hope that he will have heard it remotely. Like him, we want to monitor carefully the impact of Clause 58 to ensure that it does not have the unintended consequences of inhibiting large protests in the vicinity of Parliament. I was particularly struck by our conversation: when I was coming into Parliament on my bike this morning—I know noble Lords are very impressed—there was an ambulance trying to get into Parliament, and it kind of illustrated the point for me.

Amendments 73, 80 and 87 relate to the powers of the police—not the Government or the Secretary of State—to attach conditions to protests, including, in particular, in relation to the generation of noise. I know that noble Lords continue to have concerns about these provisions, and I hear that in the House today. I think they are unfounded, and I say again that the provisions do not ban noisy protests; the overwhelming majority of protests will be unaffected by these provisions. But are noble Lords really saying that any amount of noise, in any situation, at any time and for any length of time, is acceptable if it is generated by protestors? The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, clearly demonstrate that it is not. The Government do not subscribe to this view and nor does the majority of the British public. Back to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: we have seen in a recent YouGov poll that 53% of respondents supported giving senior police officers powers to set noise limits on protests, compared to just 33% of respondents opposing the measure.

As I said in my opening remarks, the elected House has now endorsed the noise-related measures on two separate occasions during the passage of this Bill. They have the support of the British public that they should now be allowed to pass. I invite the House to reject Motion E1.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who have responded to the debate on my amendment. I do not want to detain the House because there is a lot of other business to pursue. Let me just say that the noise provision is the one we really object to. I think that, if it is passed, in a year or two years, a senior police officer will restrict a demonstration on the basis of noise. The Minister has prayed in aid public opinion in her favour. The public will ask who on earth passed legislation that means they cannot demonstrate in a democracy in their own country—who allowed that to happen? It will be this Parliament, and for that reason I press Motion E1.