Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I hesitate to follow my noble friend, who is an expert on this issue. I declare an interest as a British citizen seeking a residence permit in Norway, where I have lived with my husband for the last 14 years. I have always had access to the Norwegian national health system. My application for a residence permit—the equivalent of settled status—has been outstanding for over 12 months because of issues with comprehensive health insurance.

I start by thanking the Government for their generous approach to EU and EEA citizens seeking settled status in the UK. The Government have taken the general approach that, if someone has been living here for years and was legally accessing the NHS when the UK was part of the EU, they do not need to have, to have had or acquire comprehensive health insurance, even if—as with me in Norway—they are not working or studying. This goes beyond the Brexit agreement, but is entirely consistent with the principle that EU and EEA citizens living in the UK prior to Brexit should be able to continue to live here on the same terms after Brexit. It is the right thing to do. I am grateful to the Government for taking such an approach. I wish Norway would do the same.

My understanding of this amendment is that it goes a step beyond settled status—where EU and EEA citizens who have qualified for settled status seek to be naturalised as British citizens, to exercise family reunion rights as a naturalised British citizen, or to have their UK-born children recognised as British at birth. Even though they do not have to have comprehensive sickness insurance for settled status, it currently appears that they may have to have it for citizenship purposes. This amendment seeks to rectify that anomaly between settled status and citizenship. I am getting a nod, so that is okay.

What this amendment seeks to achieve follows on logically from the generous and welcome stance of the British Government on settled status in relation to comprehensive sickness insurance. We support the amendment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we support Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. We raised this issue in the Commons and pushed it to a Division in Committee. I will not repeat all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have made.

I want to make a few observations. This is an opportunity for the Government to clear up an obscure, largely technical anomaly which is having real-world consequences for a number of people. CSI was not required for any EEA or Swiss citizen to live in the UK and to be able to access the NHS. However, it was not generally communicated that this was an additional requirement. Most people now being impacted by this relatively obscure provision had no idea about it.

I do not believe that this should be controversial; it is a sensible change. There are two reasons for that. First, when the Government designed the EU settlement scheme, they chose not to include CSI as a requirement, so they have already decided that this requirement was not necessary and to waive it entirely. Secondly, the Government openly acknowledge that this is causing problems because they have introduced guidance, as we have heard, for caseworkers that some degree of discretion might be exercised where there are compelling grounds for granting citizenship. The amendment simply but constructively builds on that, rather than leaving it up to a vague discretionary power, the flaws of which have been discussed.

This is a simple, clear change to the law to reflect the reality of the situation that prevails in the UK. It is very much in the spirit of rectifying obscure anomalies and barriers in our nationality law, which the early clauses of the Bill, notwithstanding those that are controversial, attempt to do.

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

I thank both noble Lords for their comments and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for tabling this new clause about comprehensive sickness insurance, or CSI, which, under EU free movement law, was needed by EEA nationals in certain circumstances in order to reside lawfully in the UK. I was most grateful to have the chance to discuss this with the noble Baroness last week, as she said.

The EEA regulations set out the requirements that EEA nationals had to meet if they wished to reside here lawfully as a qualified person exercising free movement rights. Those who were working in the UK, or indeed who were self-employed, did not need CSI to be here lawfully, but students, the self-sufficient and their family members did. That requirement was set out in published guidance.

I note the noble Baroness’s comments about EEA nationals being able to access the NHS. Under UK legislation, all EEA nationals here under free movement had the ability to access state-provided healthcare on the basis of their ordinary residence, but the requirement to hold CSI ensured that the financial burden of providing free state-funded healthcare did not fall on the host member state, as is the clear objective of free movement law. Therefore, having access to the NHS did not equate with the requirement for CSI, although it could include the European health insurance card, otherwise known as the EHIC, issued by the EEA national’s home state.

The first part of this amendment would amend the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 so that a person is treated as having had CSI if they had access to the NHS in practice or held a CSI policy. However, there is no mention of CSI in the rest of that Act, nor is there any requirement for CSI in the residence scheme immigration rules—the rules for the EU settlement scheme in Appendix EU—for an EEA national to obtain status under the scheme.

Consistent with the citizens’ rights agreements and the relevant EU case law, a so-called Lounes dual EEA/British national can currently sponsor relevant family members under the EU settlement scheme where that national was living in the UK in accordance with free movement law, including any requirement for CSI, before they also acquired British citizenship. However, I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Baroness that the Government have decided that, as a matter of fairness, they will amend the Immigration Rules for the EUSS and the EUSS family permit at the next appropriate opportunity to disapply any requirement for a Lounes dual national to have held CSI in order to sponsor applications by relevant family members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be exceptionally brief as we had a number of significant debates on statelessness last week and we are only too aware of the crucial issues that we need to reach today.

As we have heard, the 1997 convention provided a series of general principles relating to nationality, including non-discrimination and governing principles on statelessness. I gently point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that no Government of any complexion have ratified it since 1997. The Labour Government in 2002 was referred to, but no Government since have ratified it either. That is just a general point.

It would be helpful and constructive for the Committee at this stage of the debate, if the Minister could confirm the following points. These are very detailed, so, to be fair, the noble Baroness may wish to write to us. Do the Government have any plans to consider ratifying the treaty or intend to do so in the near future, and is that under consideration? Have the Government made any assessment of the specific elements of the treaty that they may be opposed to and, if so, could the Minister tell us what they are? Lastly, what are the existing provisions in UK law that are currently outside the provisions of that treaty? It would be helpful to have a bit more detail about the convention, where it relates to existing law and where there are any gaps or points that we may wish to consider in future.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for their brief and succinct points in speaking to the amendment.

British citizenship affords benefits and privileges; the vast majority of us enjoy the freedom that they bring, while of course respecting the rights of others and the rule of law, but there are high-harm individuals who do not share our values. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right that no Government since 1997, including the coalition Government of 2010-15, have ratified the convention, and he is right that we are not going to. The convention does not address the modern threat from global terrorism, among other things, and I would add that Spain, Belgium and Switzerland have not signed it either, perhaps for the same reasons.

The convention on nationality is at odds with domestic law. The Government do not consider it right that our sovereign powers to deprive a person of citizenship should be constrained by signing the convention, as the amendment would oblige us to do. That would severely limit the ability of the Home Secretary to make a deprivation decision in relation to high-harm individuals and those who pose a threat to public safety. Sadly, we have seen too often the effect of terrorist attacks on our way of life and the impact of serious organised crime on the vulnerable. It cannot be right that the Government are not able to use all the powers at their disposal to deal with today’s threats to our way of life.

It is the Government’s duty to keep the public safe and we do not make any apology for seeking to do so. I hope that, with that, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government make much of the rhetoric of breaking the people smugglers’ business model. I studied economics at university—back in the day when PPE stood for politics, philosophy and economics rather than personal protective equipment—and I have a master’s degree in business administration. From my knowledge and experience, it appears to me that the Government do not understand business models or how to break them. These amendments aim to probe what the Government are doing to target the real criminals in all of this, the people smugglers, rather than targeting innocent, desperate seekers of sanctuary, which is what most of the Bill is actually about. I beg to move.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a little more than I have on the two previous groups. I think Amendment 36, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and to which I have added my name, is a brilliant amendment.

Amendment 129, which I have signed with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to give a practical illustration of what may be done and should be done. Frankly, most of us would believe that it is a no-brainer type of amendment that we would expect the Government to approve with the stroke of a pen. I will speak just briefly to this amendment, because I want to come back to Amendment 36, which is a better amendment than mine, to be frank; it is more wide-ranging and encompassing. I am sure that noble Lords have looked at it with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has apologised for being unable to be with us today. The amendment proposes a new clause, headed:

“Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom”.


Social media platforms are advertising how they can help illegal immigration into our country. Sky News googled it and came up with a list of the adverts.

No wonder sometimes people stop you in the street and say, “Do you know what you’re doing?”, because we would assume that the Government would stop illegal activity, published on a website for people to use while being exploited. The Minister should at least respond by saying, “Lord Coaker, you are quite right. Nobody condones that. We don’t condone it, and this is what we’re going to do about it.” I know that social media companies are difficult; there are platforms and there are ways around it. But we should at least make the effort to say that we are doing everything within our power to stop social media platforms being used in such a way by these criminal gangs.

Therefore, Amendment 129 speaks for itself. The explanatory statement says:

“This amendment would provide it is an offence to advertise illegal routes to the UK.”


Who could object to that? The amendment may be flawed—it may not be right or accurate or it may not meet the test of the lawyers who could look at it—I have no idea. But I do not think that anyone would disagree with an attempt to do that. So, if it is not right, perhaps the Government could tell us what they are doing or what amendment they will bring forward to do that, and we could look forward to that on Report or some other government action. I know that the Minister and the Government will disagree with that, so the question is: what will we do about it?

Having spoken to my amendment, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I will come back to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I apologise; I know that we want to get to Clause 11, which we will oppose and which is a shocking part of the Bill. But the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was quite right when he spoke about Amendment 36, which deals with the people smugglers—where else in the Nationality and Borders Bill are they actually being dealt with by the Government?

I do not know whether noble Lords saw it, but, today and yesterday, the Times, the Telegraph and other newspapers reported the latest statistics on migrant crossings. I make no comment on what is causing them, but it is a statistical fact that the Home Secretary promised that she would sort this out and deal with it and the Government promised that they would be tough on the borders and said that the point of leaving the EU was that we would take back control. There is all of that, but then we look at the statistics: the number of migrants crossing the channel this January has gone up six times compared with last year. There should be a Statement by the Home Secretary in the Commons. Whatever the rights and wrongs, and whatever the causes, this is an astonishing increase. We find out that this means that there have been 46 boats, compared with 15 last year. By the way, it is also pointed out that the French stopped 29 boats last month. I know that we do not think that they do anything, but they did stop 29. Perhaps they should have stopped more, but they are doing something.

We find out something else here—this is why I am spending some time on this and why the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is quite right in her amendment. We find out that part of the Government’s plan, announced in the Times and the Telegraph—not here, unless it was put in a Written Ministerial Statement or Question that I cannot find; it may have been, and I apologise if it was—is locking up all single male migrants. This is according to the Secretary of State for Defence, who outlined further details of the plan for dealing with this—perhaps that is what would appear in a report that would come forward under Amendment 36. This may be the right policy, but I would have thought that that would be a subject for debate in Parliament. It is a fairly major thing to say that you are going to do—it must be a change, and it must be government policy because the Secretary of State announced it in the Times and the Telegraph today and yesterday. I saw it in the Times only about an hour ago—noble Lords may be better informed than me—while I was reading the sport section. I just flicked through the paper and there it was, and I thought, “Goodness me.” But, seriously, that is a really serious policy initiative that will be part of the plan to deal with migrants crossing the channel. The only point that I am making is that we should debate and discuss whether we believe that this is an appropriate way of dealing with this.

I was further shocked. I also deal with defence, and I asked the Defence Minister in the Lords about this. Tom Pursglove, who is a Member in the other place in the Home Office, said in the Times that the Bill will

“strengthen the powers of Border Force to stop and redirect vessels”.

This is how a Home Office Minister in the other place described what is in the Bill.

I thought that this was not the Government’s policy any more. Certainly, the Defence Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who spoke for them on this—I do not mean to misquote her—told me that. That is push-back by another name. Redirecting boats or strengthening the powers of the Border Force to stop and redirect boats is push-back. This is simple: it is either yes or no. They are not going to use a destroyer—nobody is that stupid about this; they will not have a naval destroyer pushing a dinghy back—but is a naval commander going to be able to direct a smaller Border Force vessel to redirect a dinghy, as Tom Pursglove MP said in the papers today? I thought the Government had given up on that policy. Certainly, as I understood it, the Ministry of Defence’s understanding was that it was not going to require the Border Force to do that. I apologise if I am confusing noble Lords but I am confused by the Government’s policy. I thought it was one thing, but now, according to the papers, it appears to be another.

All I am saying is that you can see why the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is so important, because it would require the Government to publish reports on what is going on regarding discussions with Governments and authorities, not only of our own country but of others, to tackle the smugglers. These people are not finding the dinghies themselves, collaborating with 30 other people—or whatever the numbers are—and deciding that they are all going to pile on. These people are exploited by the people smugglers, yet this is mentioned hardly anywhere in the Bill. Indeed, instead of dealing with the smugglers, the Bill changes the way we treat refugees and victims fleeing war and persecution, who are being loaded on to these boats. They are regarded almost as the criminals rather than the real criminals. That is what noble Lords will come on to when they discuss Clause 11 and other parts of the Bill. I cannot tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, how important this is. That is why I am labouring this: Amendment 36 is really important.

If noble Lords get the chance to have a look, Amendment 36 also says, quite rightly, in proposed new subsection (2):

“The report must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”


What sensible person, in seeking to deal with people smuggling, refugees and asylum seekers, does not also believe and understand that part of the solution lies in dealing with the situations that individuals are fleeing from? I have not spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about this, but I suspect that what she is also trying to do through this amendment is say that you deal with asylum seekers and refugees not through sanctions, provisions, criminalising people and making them afraid but by addressing the problems in the countries, areas and regions they are fleeing from.

I tell your Lordships this: if I was living with my family and we were being bombed, I would flee. If my family was in a place where there was starvation, no water and poverty, and where we were threatened by criminal gangs or torture, I would flee, and I would go anywhere. I would want to protect myself, my family and my children. If you want to deal with asylum seekers and refugees, of course you must have a policy that deals with them when they arrive, but you also have to understand why they are fleeing and escaping from the country in which they were born and do something about it there.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is on the Council of Europe; he and I have spoken about many of these things. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord and I went to Jordan, near its border with Syria. We say about countries such as Jordan, Turkey and others, “Oh, it’s about time somebody else did something”. We went to a refugee camp in Jordan where there were hundreds of thousands of people; I went to a refugee camp in Angola where there were more than a million people.

Some of the poorest countries in the world are dealing with some of the biggest refugee crises, and sometimes with almost more resource and compassion than we do. There are astonishing numbers of people displaced and moving between these regions and countries. The thousands whom we deal with are a problem—I am not decrying that or saying that we should not do anything—but some of these other countries are having to deal with things in biblical proportions. I could not believe what I saw in Jordan when people were fleeing war and persecution, but I will tell you what the Jordanians did not do. When nearly 1 million people came across the border, they did not turn round to them and say, “We’re going to split you into different groups” but “We’re going to do what we can to help you”, while recognising that the problem in Syria or elsewhere also needed to be addressed.

Intelligence: Russia

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness illustrates some of the complexities around state activity. She is absolutely right—I recall her being involved in the Bill—and the Government have made a start on this. We have things such as unexplained wealth orders in place, and we will be bringing forward legislation to deal with the various threats that are impeding the rule of law and our economy.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in the 2020 report the committee found that until recently, the Government had badly underestimated the response required to the Russian threat and were still playing catch-up. Shockingly, that same report also found that the UK was clearly a target, but that no one within government was prepared to take responsibility for the defence of the UK’s democratic processes. Therefore, can the Minister reassure the House that whatever legislation the Government are proposing will deal with those specific points, and that they will move quickly to deal with this and the other issues that noble Lords have raised today?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I most certainly can reassure noble Lords that we will be looking at all legislative possibilities to deal with the various issues that the noble Lord, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have raised today.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, the first Bill I can remember that dealt with this subject did so under the name of “harassment”. That was before 1997. This whole evil has grown extraordinarily since then. I am not aware of any real analysis of the reason for that exponential growth, but it is certainly important that the people who have to deal with it understand what is involved. Unless and until that is developed fully, the problem will probably continue to increase.

In the list of people in this amendment, I do not see mention of the judiciary. Does the noble Lord, Lord Russell, have it in mind? Obviously, judges have to understand lots of different things that come before them and the judicial training system has been developed very much over a number of years. It is very effective. If it is intended to include the judiciary, it would be very advisable to say that, because the judicial training system would take account of that and, no doubt, as he said, look for the resources required to do it properly.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I add our strong support for this amendment. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, along with many others, for their tireless efforts and leadership on this issue and their informative and inspirational words this afternoon.

The crucial point is that stalking is an offence that escalates. Victims and their families are being let down to an extent by the failure to recognise the seriousness of this crime—although, to be fair, that is improving—and the failure to manage serial and dangerous offenders. This Chamber has supported stronger action to tackle stalking perpetrators and protect victims in multiple pieces of legislation over the past few years, yet we find ourselves having to raise it again.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed out, the amendment is a fairly moderate ask. Having said that, it is exceptionally important; it will make a huge difference to ensure that those interacting with stalking victims and investigating these offences have specialist training. The Minister should accept it and the Government should go even further in tackling this vile, criminal behaviour, on which the whole Chamber is united.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we strongly support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. We strongly support the amendment because, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy pointed out, misogyny sits behind much harassment and intimidating behaviour that, unfortunately, many women experience as a reality every day in our communities. It fuels behaviour that, far too often, escalates into serious offences. We have to repeat, again and again, that violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum.

I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was alluding to and am proud of my own local police in Nottinghamshire, who have been leaders in this area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, pointed out. It was the first force, in 2016, to record misogyny as a hate crime. I can tell the Chamber that it made a very real difference in Nottinghamshire when the chief constable, Sue Fish, stood up and said she was going to make it a priority for her officers. It spoke to her officers in terms of how they dealt with it, but it also spoke to the women and girls, and indeed the men of Nottinghamshire, about the priority that was going to be given. It made a very real difference and continues to do so. Sue Fish should be congratulated on being the leader that she was and is.

This campaign to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in the same way that we recognise hostility against a person due to disability, race or other characteristics has been running for years. Now is the time for all of us to show some leadership, to close the gap in our law and to state clearly that we do not accept the status quo and that things must change. There is much support for this change and the Government should take this opportunity, an opportunity that exists for us now and that we should take.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I was quite pleased to hear noble Lords saying that your Lordships’ House should curtail debate this evening: I have never experienced it in all my time as a Minister.

I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Ponsonby, for this amendment. It speaks to their continued commitment to tackling violence against women and girls and I know they have campaigned tirelessly on this issue. Given their sincerity and their deep and obvious desire to do what is best in this sphere, I am saddened that I am not going to give them much comfort on this amendment, and I shall explain why.

As noble Lords may be aware, last month the Law Commission published its final report, Hate Crime Laws. It is a weighty tome—some 545 pages—and, as always with the Law Commission, it is a thoughtful and well-argued document that warrants very close reading. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Law Commission for the thorough and intelligent way in which it approached the task that it was given. I assure noble Lords that the Government will give all the recommendations, of which there are 34, very detailed consideration. As is customary, a full government response will be published in due course; it will address each of the recommendations and I do not want to pre-empt that process.

However, ahead of that I should just draw noble Lords’ attention to what the Law Commission said on the specific issue which Amendment 114F addresses; namely, adding sex and gender to hate crime laws or, in common parlance, “making misogyny a hate crime”. In its report, the Law Commission was unequivocal that the course of action represented by this amendment would not be appropriate, as it would potentially prove detrimental to women and girls. Indeed, it noted that to add these characteristics to the hate crime legislative framework

“may prove more harmful than helpful”

and would be

“the wrong solution to a very real problem.”

I add that transgender identity is already covered in hate crime laws.

In coming to the conclusion it did, the Law Commission applied its usual rigour, dedicating almost three years of thought and careful deliberation to its work. It did so by examining, in exhaustive fashion, whether any legal models would be appropriate to making misogyny a hate crime. It did so on the premise that

“violence against women and girls is extremely prevalent and harmful”,

as noble Lords have said—eliminating all doubt, if there was any, that it did not in good faith stretch every sinew to find an appropriate solution through the hate crime framework. Finally, it did so while listening to and acknowledging the voices of many practitioners who are dedicated to tackling violence against women and girls before making its recommendations, independent of government or political considerations. In this regard, there are few greater examples of what might be called evidence-based policy-making.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

115: Clause 56, page 48, line 29, leave out subsections (2) and (3)

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rosser; it is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I will be reasonably brief on this group of amendments, because, unlike the ones we are to reach later today, we have had prior debates on, and scrutiny of, some of these provisions.

The group covers the existing protest provisions in the Bill, but this amendment focuses on one particular priority issue, namely, the imposition on public processions conditions related to noise. Indeed, the clause targets protests for being too noisy. It provides a trigger for imposing conditions on public assemblies, public processions and one-person protests if a protest is too noisy. Many noble Lords in this Chamber will know that many people would have fallen foul of the conditions in this proposed new legislation had it indeed been the law at the time. I certainly have been on numerous demonstrations, as have many noble Lords behind me —and, I am sure, some in front of me—

[A noble Lord]

The Countryside Alliance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Whatever: they will have been on various demonstrations. Whether they were on behalf of the Countryside Alliance or not, the principle would have been the same and noise would have been a part of them. Has democracy collapsed in the face of noisy protests over the last couple of centuries? It has not. At some of the protests that I have been on—and, I am sure, at those that many noble Lords have been on—the noise has been phenomenal. It has been part of the object of them. Never have any Government of any colour sought to ban protests on the basis of noise or to put conditions on the basis of noise.

Protests are noisy—whether it is local families protesting the closure of a leisure centre or a march in front of this Parliament, protests make noise. The more well attended a protest is, the more popular support an issue has, in general, the noisier it will be. These clauses do not restrict protests for being violent or out of control or for causing damage; these are peaceful protests, but they can be restricted because somebody, in someone’s mind, is too noisy. The clause provides that a protest can trigger these conditions if the noise generated might cause

“serious unease, alarm or distress”.

It is an exceptionally low and vague threshold, as many noble Lords pointed out in Committee.

The Government have sought to do something about that. They have recognised it and thought, “This is a bit of a problem; they are quite right about some of the vagueness of this and about some of the definitions”, so the Government have brought forward a series of amendments, which are in this group. Without reading this to noble Lords—because they can read it for themselves—we can look at proposed new subsection (2ZC) in government Amendment 116, I will just leave this open and hanging in the air. If that clarifies what “noisy” means in the context of a protest, when it talks about people connected to organisations in the vicinity,

“not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on”

their activities, the courts are going to have a field day. That is the clarification; that is the way in which the Government seek to do something about it. Even the Government recognise that vagueness is a problem. They are trying to do something about vagueness with a clarification that is equally vague, but which allows them to say that they have tried to address the problems raised in Committee.

Of course, the Government always have to balance protests with the rights of people to go about their lawful business. Balance is always important, but the right to protest in this country has never, ever had to have a condition placed upon it that is about noise. It never has. The noise generated at protests that I have been on has been immense, but never have the Government turned round or panicked and said that they needed to impose conditions on that in some way in order to do something about the protests. These are very serious amendments that we have put forward. These are very serious debates that will take place from now on, on the existing clauses and then on the new clauses. They involve the fundamental right of people to protest. Making noise is a fundamental part of the freedom to protest properly in a democracy.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I also put my name to Amendments 115 and 123, because I am still concerned about the Minister’s assurance in Committee on Clauses 56 and 57 that the threshold for the police to impose these conditions on noise would be very high. However, the threshold in Clause 56(3) that the noise caused by protesters could cause reasonably firm people to suffer serious unease seems subjective, and a low threshold. I fear that it will put the police in an invidious position.

I refer the House to the JCHR report recommendations on these clauses. It says:

“Using multiple terms that are open to wide interpretation, such as ‘intensity’ and ‘serious unease’, leaves an excessive degree of judgment in the hands of a police officer … It will also give rise to uncertainty for those organising and participating in demonstrations and fails to provide convincing safeguards against arbitrary or discriminatory use of these powers.”


I urge your Lordships to support Amendments 115 and 123.

--- Later in debate ---

We have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords about the regulation-making powers in these clauses and have amended the Bill accordingly in line with the recommendations from the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. I ask noble Lords that, with these changes, the House now supports these clauses and rejects Amendment 115.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. These amendments deal with existing parts of the Bill; we will come to the new clauses that the Government propose in later groups. We have very serious concerns about what the existing clauses, to which I tabled Amendment 115 and which many noble Lords have spoken about this evening, will do to the right to protest. I remind noble Lords, because I am going to seek to test the opinion of the House, that Amendment 115 specifically deals with the Bill’s provisions with respect to noise, which are ridiculous, irrelevant and simply will not work. They will impact on the right to protest. If they will not impact on the right to protest, what is the point of the Government proposing the law in the first place?

With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, if I am right they were Members of Parliament during the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments. People will say, “This is a bygone age. What does Lord Hain know about it? He’s talking about things from decades ago.” But what about the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham? There were riots during the poll tax and the miners’ strike; look at all the protests that went on there, many of which I played a part in, particularly on the poll tax and the miners’ strike—not the riots.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I was not born yesterday.

The noise was massive during the poll tax and the miners’ strike protests. The disruption outside Parliament was absolutely enormous: rattling the gates, banging the drums, stopping this and that. What did Margaret Thatcher do? She did not introduce a noise amendment to the right to protest. I completely and utterly reject the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, but she did not do this, and neither did John Major. What has happened that has caused the Government now to introduce these changes to the right to protest with respect to noise, which previous Prime Ministers did not do in the face of some of the most difficult demonstrations, whatever the rights and wrongs of them? It beggars belief.

I say this to the Minister: if these amendments do not pass and the Bill becomes law, there will be a demonstration on climate change, on the building of a dam or a housing estate, or on some road going through a forest, and the police will put conditions on it with respect to noise and the public will say, “When did this happen? Who passed this? What on earth were they thinking of?” If you ask the public whether they object to disruption, or whether they object to protests with respect to their lives, then of course they will say yes. I moan about demonstrations if I cannot get into Parliament, but it does not mean that they are wrong or that they should not take place.

Protesting is a part of democracy. Of course I do not believe that the Government are some sort of right-wing fascist organisation, but I believe that this particular measure is a fundamental attack on a freedom that the citizens of this country have enjoyed for centuries. As such, I hope the Chamber will support Amendment 115.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Generally, I support the original intention of the legislation. It is not only well intended but well focused. People are carrying knives. They have been convicted already of carrying knives, they have been told, so why are they still carrying knives? Somebody has to do something about that, and not leave officers on the street at 3 am to make all those decisions themselves. They need some support, therefore this legislation is worthy of support.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, all of us in the Chamber are united by our desire to tackle violent crime, target police resources better and see fewer victims of crime. If we look at the Government’s own statistics with respect to this, it is worth reminding ourselves that to be fair to the Government, this is what they are seeking to try to deal with. In the impact assessment we see that offences involving knives increased by 84% between June 2014 and June 2020, homicides increased by 38% and gun crime rose by 28%. In the year ending June 2020, 262 people were stabbed to death, with 4,800 admissions for assault by a sharp object. Just recently, we have seen the horrific figure of 30 young people murdered on the streets of London. You can see why the Government are seeking to do something.

Any Government would want to do something, but what is being said to the Government is: are the serious violence prevention orders and the way in which they are set up the way to deal with that? That is the purpose of many of the amendments, many of which we support. The purpose of the amendments today—again, we have heard many arguments from many noble Lords in this House—is to raise those concerns and air those issues about how the orders will be used and the breadth of who they can be applied to. There is some difference of opinion, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in his view of stop and search without suspicion and its use, and others have very serious concerns about it.

If the measures—these orders—are to go ahead, the crucial thing for this House is to ensure that the pilot that the Government have said they will carry out with respect to these orders is absolutely right, and to make sure that it is not just a tick-box exercise that the Government can use to say, “There you are—that proves what we said in the first place.” In particular, we need to look at whether the issues that have been raised, quite rightly, actually occur, in which case the orders would be inappropriate. Most important of all: do the orders work? Will they actually bring down those horrific figures that I just mentioned in the way that we would all want? Do they reduce and prevent violent crime, are they successful at diverting people away from crime and the criminal justice system, and are they a good use of police resources?

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Armstrong who, for good reason, cannot be with us today, for her Amendments 90K and 90L, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her support for them. They raise the issue of women and girls who have been exploited in gangs and are likely to be caught up in the provisions of these serious violence prevention orders, in particular where, in the phrase we have heard from many noble Lords, they “ought to have known” that a companion was carrying a knife. Notwithstanding what has been said, my own experience of this is that “ought to have known” ignores the reality of the coercive and abusive nature of many girls’ involvement in those gangs. It is not the “ought to have known” that we would all think about when we talk about the lives we lead. In the chaotic lifestyle of those gang members, “ought to have known” is an unreasonable expectation. It is absolutely vital that the pilot looks at how those provisions impact on violence against women and girls and their impact on vulnerable and exploited women.

Therefore, because of the importance of the pilot, we strongly support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick: Amendments 95A, 95B and 95C. Amendment 95B in particular brings all of these debates together in ensuring that Parliament not only gets a report on the pilot but a detailed answer from the Government on any issues that the pilot raises. Not many amendments could be quite as reasonable as that. It would provide simple parliamentary scrutiny and allow Parliament then to make a decision on whether these orders work and should be rolled out and on whether the issues that many noble Lords have raised are right.

Amendment 95C ensures the pilot is a genuine evidence-gathering exercise and considers, as I say, all the important issues raised. I raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in Committee, as did others, and I am grateful to the Minister for writing to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in response to the points raised and copying it to other noble Lords. At the moment, the Bill would provide that certain details of the orders are provided in regulations that would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is welcome. The amendment would take this one step further—quite rightly, which is why we support it. It would ensure that the decision over whether to introduce the orders, once we have genuine evidence on how they have worked following the pilot, is taken by Parliament and not just by the Home Office. I respectfully suggest that that would not be too big an ask. The Government have already accepted that these orders need to be piloted, so if the principle of piloting has been accepted, surely Parliament should be able to scrutinise whether the pilot has been a success and whether the issues raised by noble Lords and indeed others in the other place are right.

All of us are united by a desire to tackle serious and violent crime, but that does not mean that we should just take any action that this Parliament considers necessary without considering the consequences. Stop and search without suspicion is probably one action that highlights that more than any other, but there have certainly been other issues related to women and girls as well. I ask the Minister to consider parliamentary scrutiny and whether these orders should go forward. I would suggest that is a perfectly reasonable response for this Chamber and others to make.

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

My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments are about two things: serious violence reduction orders and stop and search powers more broadly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for setting out the case for their amendments, and to other noble Lords for promoting the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, in her absence. We wish her well.

Amendments 90G, 90M and 91C would raise the threshold for the standard of proof required to impose an SVRO from the civil to the criminal standard. SVROs are civil orders introduced to protect communities and deter offenders from future offending. As such, we think that the civil standard is appropriate to enable a court to consider a wide range of evidence from both the offender and the prosecution when considering whether to make an SVRO.

Amendments 90H, 90J, 90K and 90L all seek to limit the circumstances in which an SVRO may be made. As regards Amendment 90H, it is the Government’s view that an SVRO should be available when an adult has been convicted of an offence where a knife or offensive weapon was present, whether it was used in the commission of the offence or not. But this does not mean that an SVRO will be applied for, or made, in all such cases. The prosecution would first need to consider whether it was appropriate to make an application to the court for an SVRO. The court must consider it necessary to make the SVRO in order to protect the public or prevent reoffending, and it would be very difficult to see how a court might consider an SVRO to be necessary if there was no evidence of risk of harm involving a knife or offensive weapon or risk of knife or offensive weapons offending; the bladed article was not relevant to the offence; or the individual was in possession of a bladed article with a reasonable excuse such as for use at work or for religious purposes—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester gave an example of the church picnic.

Amendments 90J, 90K and 90L would remove provisions in the Bill that would allow an order to be made if another person who committed the offence used or had with them a bladed article or offensive weapon in the commission of the offence and the offender knew or ought to have known that this would be the case. I reiterate that, for an SVRO to be made in any circumstances, the individual must have been convicted of an offence where a bladed article or offensive weapon was used in the commission of the offence or was with either the offender or another individual who was also convicted of an offence arising from the same set of facts. This provision would capture a situation where more than one person was convicted of an offence arising from the same set of facts, but not all the individuals used a bladed article or offensive weapon in the commission of the offence, or had such an item with them when the offence was committed.

In these circumstances, an SVRO may still be necessary to protect the public or any particular members of the public, including the offender, from the risk of harm involving a bladed article or offensive weapon, or to prevent the offender from committing an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon—for example, a fight or robbery where the offender in possession of a knife and the offender not in possession of the knife are convicted of offences arising from the same facts. In any such case, the prosecution must consider whether to make an application for an SVRO and the court must consider whether to grant that order. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made that point. Both the prosecution and the court therefore retain discretion to determine the appropriate course of action on a case-by-case basis. On my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point about “ought to have known”, I will undertake to ensure that we address that point in the statutory guidance; it is a good point. I also add that the phrase is used in other legislation, so it is not a new concept that is unknown to the courts, albeit that it is used in different circumstances. I will take that one back.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for very effectively introducing the amendments. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady O’Loan, for their powerful contributions, in their different ways. I will have much more to say about the College of Policing code of ethics and the culture in the police service when we debate the amendments on the duty of candour.

I agree with other noble Lords that debating this issue at this time of night is not appropriate. I do not believe there was a conspiracy to make this debate happen late in the evening, but it was open to the Government Chief Whip not to begin this group at this time of night, but to debate it the next day—and I believe he should have done that.

On the substance of the amendment, the last non-statutory inquiry into the police—by the Daniel Morgan independent panel—took, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, more than eight years to complete, because it did not have the powers of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act, and because, as we have heard, it faced obstruction by the police, leaving important questions still unanswered. The Macpherson report—the inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence—took less than two years, and had a fundamental impact on policing. If the Government do not accept Amendment 102, we must assume that they want an inquiry that drags on for years and does not answer the fundamental questions. It is as simple as that.

For the protection of police officers and members of the public, those arrested should not be placed into a vehicle or taken into premises unless there are at least two officers present. Not only would Amendment 108 reassure women and girls, but it is also basic common sense. Similarly, Amendment 109, requiring the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice in relation to the transportation, as well as the detention, of people by the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, is necessary. What could the Government’s objections possibly be? Perhaps we are about to find out.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken so far in the debate. I shall focus on Amendment 102, which is incredibly important. The speeches by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove, Lady O’Loan and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have all, in their own ways, made important points to the Government.

The question for the Government is whether they will listen and respond to that, or whether they will just say, “This is the decision we have made, and whatever arguments are put to us, we’re not going to change”. This is one of those moments when they do need to respond. They need to change, and to listen to the arguments that have been made right across this Chamber and beyond—and, no doubt, by many of the people who will be listening. The reason I say that is that the statutory inquiry called for in Amendment 102, moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, has at its heart the need for the restoration of public confidence and trust.

There are seismic moments in our country: events that demand a response that goes beyond normal politics, beyond the normal debate between parties—events that demand a response from this country’s Parliament, its representatives both in this Chamber and in the other place, that meets the significance of what has happened. It cannot be that we simply say that we will have a Home Office-led inquiry, and that is okay. How will the public see that? How will individuals see that? How will the people who have responded to the horror, as we all have, of what happened to Sarah Everard, see it? This touched the nation’s conscience, the nation’s inner being. It wants us to respond to that and surely, at the very least, we should say that we will undertake a statutory inquiry, because that is the way the confidence of the public can be restored. It is the way we can ensure that, as we move forward, the public can be reassured that that confidence and trust can be restored in the state, in its broadest sense—not just Parliament but the organs of the state: the justice system, the police, and all those who have responsibility because of what we legislate for here.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made what I thought was the crucial point—the one that an ordinary member of the public, frankly, from whatever part of the country, whatever their occupation, would make. What happens to that inquiry if a witness says, “I am not coming” and that inquiry is obstructed? What happens if the Home Secretary says, “It is a very important document but we cannot release it because it is sensitive”? What would the Government’s Home Office-led review be able to do if a witness refuses to attend, if the release of a document is refused, if the police, for example, refuse to co-operate? Answer from the Government there is none, other than a vague platitude: “We expect that co-operation to happen; we expect that to take place; we expect all the documents to be released.” A statutory inquiry, however, would have no such problem. There could be no obstruction, no documents withheld, because that is the point of a statutory inquiry. In the court of public opinion, let alone any other court, people will say, “Why are they not doing that? What possible reason is there for the Government not to respond in that way?” I do not understand it.

I am a Labour Peer, a Labour politician. That does not mean that I think everything the Conservative Government do is terrible; but sometimes, it does not matter where you are on the political spectrum—you have this sense of incredulity, of disbelief. Why is the system refusing to do the obvious? Why is the system not responding in the way that anybody would expect it to, in the face of the horror of what happened to Sarah Everard? We cannot undo the past, but we can make the future. I think that people would expect nothing less from us, nothing less from this Chamber, than that we say in response to the horror of what happened that the public demand a statutory inquiry that compels co-operation, documents and witnesses. There are all the other arguments that go round and round, all the other arguments that can be made, but that is the nub of it.

I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that this is one of the most fundamentally important amendments we have discussed on this Bill. Of course, there will be women—daughters, young women, girls—who want this, but there will also be a lot of men, if not the vast majority, who will be demanding that statutory inquiry for the women and the girls of this country. We all want it.

--- Later in debate ---

[A noble Lord]

Walking home tonight.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think the public would expect a statutory inquiry. I expect a statutory inquiry and I believe the vast majority of Peers would as well. The Government may set their face against it, but I hope my noble friend will put it to a vote. We can test the opinion of the House and see where that takes us if the other place is caused to think about it again. The women and girls of this country, as well as the country itself, deserve a statutory inquiry, and we should vote for it tonight.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a research fellow in modern slavery at the University of Nottingham. It is a great privilege to follow the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who outlined many of the problems and issues we have with this Bill.

I am proud and pleased to be standing here on this side of the House with the noble Baroness and many others who have spoken behind me, to my right, to my left and across the Chamber. We are all united in the belief that we need to tackle illegal immigration and have control over our borders but that, as my noble friend Lord Reid said, we should not do so at the expense of putting forward unworkable solutions which will do nothing to deal with the problems we are confronted with. Why should we do this in a way that drives a coach and horses through human rights legislation and international conventions to which this country has been a proud signatory over decades? That is the crux.

I am pleased to say that this Chamber reflects the country; there is a clash of views in the country. The Government will say they speak for public opinion—I challenge that. I believe that the whole country is united by a belief that there is an issue around illegal immigration, but I am also convinced that people want it dealt with in a fair, equitable way that reflects the traditions of our country over the decades. This Bill does not do that.

Our country has always prided itself on its tolerance, its welcome to those fleeing war and persecution and its embrace of difference and varying cultures. I am proud of that, as your Lordships’ House will be, so why have the Government introduced a Bill that makes changes for asylum seekers and refugees, altering the current system for asylum claims and appeals and introducing measures on people-smuggling and modern slavery and a two-tier system for asylum seekers arriving in the UK, with differentiation based on method of arrival? It risks undermining that very tradition in which this country has always legislated on these issues. As my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Chakrabarti and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, refugees are people. Our values must be applied; our country will be judged on the way in which we treat refugees and asylum seekers.

In Committee, we can debate and discuss this Bill line by line, but Second Reading allows us to set out the context, principles and broad sweep of policy which should guide the general topics as we go forward. I remind the House, since a political point has been made once or twice, that the Government say this Bill is needed to fix the asylum system; they have been in control of that system for 12 years, so why have initial asylum decisions fallen by 40% over the last five years, under their watch, with 67,000 people waiting for an initial decision? That is what undermines trust—the failure to administer and manage these people and situations properly.

Many of these provisions—I turn to my former boss at the Home Office, my noble friend Lord Reid—were rejected as too draconian by the last Labour Government. I understand from what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and others have said that we did not get everything right, but we rejected many of the proposals put forward in this Bill.

On illegal entry, the Bill proposes to change the immigration offence of how someone enters the UK and specifies the mode of entry as legal or illegal. The UNHCR states that, if implemented as it stands, this will cause great suffering and undermine the 1951 convention—an international protection system not just in the UK but globally. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association says that it is contrary to international law; Article 31 of the refugee convention provides that states

“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees … where their life or freedom was threatened”.

Do we care? Do we care that we are breaking these international conventions? This is what the UNHCR is saying. I just point this out to the noble Baroness the Minister. Is she right and the UNHCR is wrong? The UNHCR is saying that this Bill breaks international conventions; that this Bill is not consistent with the treaties that we have signed. Both of those statements cannot be right. As the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Hannay and Lord Oates; the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar; my noble friends Lord Dubs, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Griffiths, Lord Reid, Lady Lister, Lady Chakrabarti and many others have stated across this Chamber, this country seeks to ensure that international treaties and obligations are met by others, and we should ensure that we meet them ourselves.

Group 1 and group 2 refugees will be created by the Bill, based on how they arrived into the UK and the point at which they presented themselves to the authorities. Those who have travelled via a third country, do not have documents or did not claim asylum immediately will be designated group 2 refugees—sub-standard refugees, not real refugees. The UNHCR again says:

“The design of this new Group 2 refugee status is incompatible with the 1951 convention.”


It does not say that it has a problem with it: it says it is incompatible with the convention. Do we care? Does that not matter? Are we bothered? Do the Government think that the UNHCR is wrong? What are they going to do about it? Why do they not just get up and say, “We are going to drive a coach and horses through this”—or are they going to say that they have got this wrong?

Why did we not negotiate new Dublin III arrangements when we left the EU? There are no return agreements with EU countries, and family reunion routes for refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, including children, have been cut. So how will the Bill work with no agreements between the UK and EU member states? How will the Bill help with no workable deal with the French Government, as others have mentioned, to tackle the operations of criminal gangs on the French coast? Is it not the case that there were just five asylum seekers returned to European countries in the last year while channel crossings have soared? What is going on? What are the Government doing about it now, let alone when this Bill passes through? Is it not the case that there are no new safe, legal routes for the family reunion proposed in the Bill, and that that is one of the measures that is desperately needed and that we should be seeking to address?

The rhetoric of the Government and of the Home Secretary has failed. It failed when she said that we would halve boats across the channel in three months and make them infrequent in six months. In that time, the figure has risen tenfold. As the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Alton and Lord Morrow, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and my noble friend Lord Rosser in his brilliant speech all pointed out, the Modern Slavery Act is undermined by an immigration and asylum Bill. That is unbelievable. The Modern Slavery Act is one of the totemic achievements, if I may say so, of the Conservative Government before last—one of the totemic achievements of former Prime Minister Theresa May. On most issues I fundamentally disagree with her, but on this she deserves all the credit that should come her way for introducing that Act. She stood up in the Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, and said that certain elements of this Bill would restrict victims’ ability to come forward. She said she was concerned that the public order disqualifications threshold and the time period on slavery and trafficking information notices would have that effect. Victims of modern slavery will be prevented from coming forward to help identify those who have perpetrated crimes. Those are not my words, or words from a Labour Government now or in the past, but the words of a former Prime Minister of this country saying what the current Conservative Government are going to do to the Modern Slavery Act that she, and all of us, were so proud of.

The Government say that they want to deter people from using the defence of being a victim of modern slavery against deportation. Where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence for erecting barriers to accessing the national referral mechanism?

Of the 10,613 potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM last year, 47% were children and 34% were British. Where is the sense in what the Government are proposing there? No distinction is made in the Bill between adults and children, and the Bill as proposed would expect victims of slavery to disclose what has happened to them at the moment of identification or be penalised. What on earth? Does the Minister realise how ridiculous it is to expect somebody traumatised by modern slavery or trafficking to be able to present themselves within a short, specified time to the police or others with these identification notices, otherwise they will be deemed to have failed? It is unbelievable, unworkable and something that I and no doubt many others will want to come back to on Report.

I have a last couple of comments. The independent slavery commissioner, Sara Thornton, says the Bill

“will severely limit our ability to convicted perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”

Others have mentioned offshore processing. Others have mentioned Clause 9. Others have mentioned issues to do with the RNLI and pushback. There will be amendments coming forward, if not from us then from others, which we will support. Will the Ministers say to me, to this House, to this Chamber and to this country that, if I were a navigator on a boat passing people at sea and in danger, it will be a criminal offence, as under the Bill as currently constituted it will be, for me to stop and help them? Is that really the legislation we are seeking to pass? I do not believe that even the Minister would do it, nor would the noble Lord—they are decent people and would want to help, but the legislation they are proposing to this House, this Chamber, this evening would penalise people and make it a criminal offence for them to do that. It is ridiculous and simply has to stop.

We could go on. There is much to debate and we will seek to amend the Bill as it goes forward, protecting the victims of modern slavery, including children, with safe routes for unaccompanied children, safe routes for family reunion of unaccompanied children and negotiations with the EU for a new asylum agreement, including safe legal routes and safe returns, maintaining our respect for international law and agreements. The Bill will not solve the problem of dangerous boat crossings and will not improve security co-operation or create safe legal routes. It will make it harder to prosecute and convict people traffickers and will grant the Home Secretary the power to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country. It will give the Home Office the power to deprive a person of their British citizenship without warning—third-class citizenship, as one noble Peer mentioned. The Bill has a lot wrong with it and certainly, as we go forward in Committee, we will seek to amend it, as we will on Report. This country has a proud tradition of supporting asylum seekers and refugees, and this Bill is not part of that.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this an incredibly serious inquiry that we are discussing in this Urgent Question. Four men were vilely murdered by a man who targeted young, gay men. They were failed by the police and the system. The jurors’ verdict that fundamental failings in the police investigation probably contributed to three deaths is serious in itself, but equally, the families and partners have raised concerns about homophobia blighting the investigation and the way they were treated. They have accused the Metropolitan Police of being prejudiced and institutionally homophobic.

Given how serious this is, is there not a need for an independent inquiry which, unlike the other inquiries already announced, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will look specifically at whether homophobia was involved in this investigation, and lessons learned for the police not only in London but, crucially, across the country, rather than trying to keep it under review, as the policing Minister said in the other place just yesterday? We cannot change the past, but we must do all we can to ensure it does not happen again. The victims of this horrific crime need to at least know that.

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

I join the noble Lord in lamenting the deaths of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth, and Jack Taylor, three of whom might not have died. The inquest’s conclusions provide very serious lessons for policing to consider and act upon. It is also right that independent and professional bodies have the opportunity to review the case. HMICFRS has been asked to conduct an inspection into the standard of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigations. The IOPC will also assess whether to reopen, either in full or in part, its investigation.

I understand that the coroner ruled that on the basis of the evidence, it would not have been possible for a conclusion to be reached on whether homophobia was an overriding factor in mistakes made, but the MPS has already announced an independent review, headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into its culture. I will, of course, take a very close interest in her findings and any recommendations she makes.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, when we discuss the Government’s important new strategy on drugs, it is worth recalling the horrific statistics behind it. The cost to the economy is £20 billion just in England, but the human cost is what truly shocks us all. Drugs drive nearly half of all homicides, and nearly 3,000 people tragically lost their lives through drug misuse in England and Wales last year. The most deprived areas of the country face the most drug-driven crime and health harms, something I know will shock us all. County lines drug dealing, involving many young people, fuels violence and exploitation.

My key question with respect to the new strategy, which we all want to work, is: how will the Government ensure that this strategy works? How will they drive the strategy forward? What is the local mechanism for the delivery of the strategy? In other words, how do we turn the rhetoric of the strategy into reality?

The Government’s Statement says that they accept all Dame Carol Black’s recommendations, which is very welcome, but she also posed a question about why we are in this dreadful situation. She says, and we should learn from this:

“Drug misuse is at tragically destructive levels in this country … Funding cuts have left treatment and recovery services on their knees. Commissioning has been fragmented, with little accountability … partnerships … have deteriorated. The workforce is depleted … and demoralised.”


That is from the strategy document on which the Government have based their work, so never has a new 10-year plan been more needed, although the starting point has to be a reversal of what has been the case and how the problems so graphically highlighted by Dame Carol Black will be reversed.

Specifically, can the Minister confirm that all the spending required by Dame Carol Black’s recommendations will be met? For example, are all the 54,000 new treatment places she advocates to be funded? Are the new family hubs the Government have announced part of this drugs strategy?

The need to tackle county lines, as highlighted in the Statement, is crucial, so can the Minister update us on progress on this? The Government have said that 1,500 county lines have been closed. What does that mean? Is it the shutting down of a phone number or the closure of a county gang line?

The Statement also talks of the police and criminal justice system. How are we going to drive up prosecutions for drug offences, which have fallen over the past 10 years, with prosecutions down 36% and convictions down 43%?

The real focused effort has to be on the victims, so how are we going to recruit more front-line drug workers? How will we co-ordinate the work of local partners out there on the street? How will we support our schools as they seek to divert their students from harm?

We all want the new drugs strategy to work. Supply chains have to be cracked down on, the implicit tolerance of so-called recreational drug use has to be challenged and criminals have to be prosecuted, but there also need to be effective, co-ordinated drug treatment programmes. So can the Minister confirm that at the heart of the Government’s proposals there will be new, properly funded, co-ordinated drug treatment programmes that divert people from illegal suppliers?

Drugs shatter communities. They shatter the lives of many people, including so many of our young people—often, but not always, some of the most deprived. We have to break this cycle of violence and abuse. It will require investment, co-ordination, treatment, prosecutions, education and a real effort delivered locally but driven from the centre. Let us hope that this strategy can deliver it because the problem of drug abuse and misuse is all around us, along with the associated human misery. We must do more. Let us hope that the drug strategy, so good on paper, becomes the reality that we all want it to be on the ground.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that when you follow the Opposition Front Bench on a Statement you are concerned that you might have your thunder stolen, but as we are talking about drugs there was no danger of that today.

The Statement sets out the impact of the illegal drug trade on individuals, families, and the economy, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has reinforced that. What assessment have the Government made of what the impact would be if there was a regulated market for cannabis, for example? What evidence is there from other parts of the world? Did the Minister see, for example, the documentary authored by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Government often rely upon to support their position, where his conclusion from looking at how such a policy operates in the United States called for a feasibility study into how such an approach could be adopted in the UK? In particular, he noted the marginal impact on drug use and the positive impact on tax income, providing resources for community policing and drug rehabilitation programmes. Does the Minister think there could be similar benefits to the UK?

The Statement talks about “a blueprint for driving drugs out of our cities, towns and villages”, but the so-called war on drugs has failed to have any impact on the demand for and use of illegal drugs. There has been temporary success in taking out county lines, which are soon replaced by others, temporary success in arresting drug dealers, who are soon replaced by rivals, and temporary success in occasionally seizing large quantities of drugs, which are dwarfed by the huge quantities of drugs that get through to users, all of which demonstrate that these so-called victories are pyrrhic. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already asked about what progress has been made on county lines. What evidence is there of a net reduction in county lines?

Does the Minister think the sight of the Prime Minister dressed as a police officer, as we saw on Monday, looking like Paddington Bear in fancy dress, is likely to strike terror into the hearts of drug dealers? “Tough enforcement action”, to quote the Statement—attempting to control the supply of drugs when demand for drugs continues to grow—is completely the wrong approach. It was the wrong approach at the time of prohibition in America in the 1920s and it is now. Does the Minister think that, instead of tough enforcement action, a similar approach to that taken with alcohol—a system of regulation and control to mitigate the harms caused—is what we need in relation to drugs other than alcohol?

We need to focus on demand. Behind the smokescreen of Paddington Bear against the drug dealers, there is some welcome news on that front in this Statement. Increased funding—in fact, the majority of the increase —is to support drug-dependent people to move from chronic use into recovery.

Dame Carol Black’s review called for an additional £552 million a year by year 5, on top of the baseline annual expenditure of £680 million from the public health grant, to provide a full range of high-quality drug treatment and recovery services. The Government are providing £530 million over three years—less than Carol Black was asking for in year 5 alone. In fact, Dame Carol asked for £119 million extra in year 1, £231 million extra in year 2 and £396 million extra in year 3, a total of £746 million, against the £530 million promised in the Statement. That £746 million can be achieved within the budget announced by the Government, but only if the majority of the £300 million the Government are putting into enforcement is diverted into treatment, where it would be far more effectively spent. Will the Government consider reallocating the budget even further in favour of treatment?

When the Labour Government moved cannabis from a class C to a class B controlled drug, with harsher penalties for possession and supply, there was no impact on cannabis use. Later, when the media covered the fact that excessive use of extremely strong, genetically modified cannabis, particularly by young people, could have serious health impacts on users, cannabis use declined. Does the Minister not agree that the evidence shows that a health-based approach, where demand is reduced by informing users of the danger and where the supply and strength of the drugs is controlled, is likely to be far more successful than continuing the failed and pointless war on drugs?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

292Q: After Clause 170, insert the following new Clause—
“Fast-track public space protection orders
In the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, after section 61 (variation and discharge of orders) insert—“61A Fast-track public spaces protection orders (1) A local authority may make a fast-track public spaces protection order where the following conditions are met—(a) the public space to which the order will apply is a school within the local authority area,(b) activities carried on, or likely to be carried on, in the vicinity of the school have had, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life for pupils and staff,(c) the local authority has provided for a five-day consultation period, and consulted—(i) the leadership of the school to which the order will apply,(ii) a chief officer of police of the police area in which the school to which the order will apply is located, and(iii) other such persons as the local authority considers appropriate, and(d) consent for the order to be applied has been granted by—(i) the leadership of the school to which the order will apply,(ii) a chief officer of police of the police area in which the school to which the order will apply is located, and(iii) the leader of the local authority which will make the order.(2) A “fast-track public spaces protection order” is a public spaces protection order which immediately imposes prohibitions or requirements as provided for under section 59.(3) A fast-track public spaces protection order may not have effect for a period of more than 6 months unless extended under this section.(4) Before the time when a fast-track public spaces protection order is due to expire, the local authority that made the order may extend the period for which it has effect if satisfied on reasonable grounds that doing so is necessary to prevent—(a) occurrence or recurrence after that time of the activities identified in the order, or(b) an increase in the frequency or seriousness of those activities after that time.(5) A fast-track public spaces protection order under this section may not be—(a) extended for a period of more than 6 months(b) extended more than once.””Member’s explanatory statement
This probes the need for fast-tracked exclusion zones around schools, in response to anti-vaccination protesters targeting schools, pupils and teachers.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 292Q in my name. Before I speak to it, I will refer to the other amendments in the group, particularly Amendment 292S in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam. It deals with an incredibly important issue: he seeks to change the relevant offences for footballing banning orders. I think that we all remember the horror when we witnessed the racism that English football players, in particular, experienced at the end of the Euros. We all condemned it and thought it disgraceful. I say this to my noble friend: I hope that the football world and the public more generally hear about the amendment that he has tabled, because sometimes they think that we do not get the world in which they live. We abhor the racism that our professional footballers, in this instance, face, as well as the racism often experienced in many other spheres of life. It is totally and utterly unacceptable to everybody in this House and beyond. My noble friend’s amendment is very good. I know that it is late in the evening, but it is an important amendment and I wish him well with it.

I wish my noble friend Lord Faulkner well with his Amendment 229U. Including it in this group is an interesting selection—having scrap metal included here makes for an interesting group of amendments. Can the Minister perhaps explain how that happened? I think that we would all be interested in the answer.

To move on, the purpose of Amendment 292Q in my name is to express

“the need for fast-tracked exclusion zones around schools, in response to anti-vaccination protesters targeting schools, pupils and teachers.”

As the Minister will know, this builds on the public space protection orders already legislated for in Section 61 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, so the principle of the need for public space protection orders has already been agreed by the Government. However, as I pointed out with reference to certain figures, this amendment seeks particularly to say, regarding the way in which those orders operate under the law at the moment, that they need to be fast-tracked. I know that the Minister will have read the various parts of the new clause that we are proposing, but it is the fast-tracking that is essential. Whatever the rights and wrong of the existing legislation, it simply cannot be applied with the speed necessary to allow school leadership, the police and local authorities to deal with some of the many problems that they have had.

In moving this amendment, I thank my friend Peter Kyle MP for his work. As the Minister will probably be aware, in Westminster Hall in the last day or two he has highlighted the particular problems that schools in his constituency in Brighton have faced and the need for something to be done about it. In particular, he talked about anti-vax protesters outside schools spreading dangerous information to children—something that we all agree is utterly unacceptable.

I looked for figures, and the ones I managed to find are from the Association of School and College Leaders. I think noble Lords will forgive me for a minute if I read out some of the statistics, because they are pretty shocking; I was shocked by them. According to the ASCL survey, nearly eight in 10 schools had been targeted by anti-vax protestors. I add that most of that was by email, but the fact remains that they have been targeted. Protests outside schools have been reported in Glasgow, Cardiff, London, Telford, Leicester, Manchester and Dorset, so this problem has been experienced right across the country. I ask noble Lords to imagine for a moment the teachers and members of staff at these schools, the parents and grandparents of children attending them, and the children themselves. Some of these children are very young—admittedly, many of them are in secondary school—and are having to deal with some of the misinformation and protests going on in the immediate vicinity of their schools.

The Association of School and College Leaders found that 420 schools had experienced protests. Of 526 responses from schools eligible for the Covid vaccination programme for 12 to 15 year-olds, 13% had reported seeing demonstrators outside their school, in the immediate vicinity. I think there is a point to be made about it being in the immediate vicinity. Eighteen schools said that demonstrators had gained access to the school, which is obviously particularly worrying, and 20 had received communications threatening harm.

What my amendment seeks to do is to say that this is unacceptable. There is legislation available, but it has taken too long for that legislation to be enacted. Even where the police, school leaders and local authorities want to take action to deal with this problem, it is taking far too long, and the children, parents and pupils at those schools are experiencing that difficulty.

I finish by saying that many media outlets have started to pursue this campaign, particularly the Mail, but it is sickening that anti-vax protestors in protests outside schools are spreading dangerous misinformation to children. The uptake of the vaccine among children is far too low, and the Government would wish to accelerate the rollout. Everything must be done to get those who are eligible to be vaccinated as soon as possible—and who knows where that will go in the coming weeks and months as the Government roll out their vaccination and booster programmes, wherever that takes us.

We are facing a public health emergency, and the last thing we need is for our children to be targeted by the irresponsible activities of a few people. I think the Government need to act to fast-track the existing legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Coaker for congratulating me on my amendment before I have spoken to it. I think that is a bit of a rarity in your Lordships’ House, but I will take it from wherever it comes.

My Amendment 292S covers racism in football and, in particular, online offences. As the explanatory statement to the amendment says:

“This would add online offences, specifically posting racist abuse aimed at football players, to the list of relevant offences for which a football banning order can be made.”


It would add offences under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989, which controls banning orders, where these messages are sent to a member of a football team and involve racial hatred.

In speaking to my amendment, I should enter a bit of history. Back in 2000, I was the Home Office Minister, sat where the noble Lord is this evening, and I had to introduce to this House what was effectively emergency legislation covering football-disorder related offences. The banning order regime that it brought in was aimed at dealing with violent and disorderly behaviour and racist activity at football matches. This was on the back of extremely poor behaviour by England football fans at the Euro 2000 competition. Such was the international outrage at the behaviour of our own fans, I believe that if we as a Labour Government had failed to act firmly, England would have been banned from competing in the subsequent World Cup in 2002.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I reiterate that the Government agree with the noble Lord. I can only repeat what I said earlier: we are working at pace and I commit to updating him before we get to Report. I hope that there will be a helpful outcome.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has Amendment 292U on metal theft. This is an important subject and one that my noble friend Lady Williams recently discussed with the noble Lord, as he acknowledged. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his contribution and his examples. I shall say a bit more about that meeting in a moment.

The Government recognise the impact of metal theft on infrastructure companies, including theft of cable from railway projects, construction companies and solar farms, as well as from heritage and community assets such as churches. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 was introduced to tackle the metal theft that was affecting many people’s day-to-day lives at that time. Under Section 12 of the 2013 Act, it is already an offence for a scrap metal dealer to pay for scrap metal using cash. The 2013 Act also places requirements on scrap metal dealers to hold a licence, verify the identity of those supplying scrap metal and retain records of metal bought and sold. These elements, together with powers for the police and local authorities to enter and inspect the premises of scrap metal dealers, make the Act an effective tool to tackle the sale of stolen metal.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to extend the provisions in the 2013 Act to make it an offence for anyone to sell scrap metal for cash. Although I understand the intention behind this amendment and the desire to have additional powers to tackle those who see metal theft as a profitable crime, the Government do not consider this amendment to be needed. The amendment would broaden the remit of the 2013 Act beyond the responsibilities placed on scrap metal dealers. Should an offender encourage, assist or incite the cash purchase of stolen metal by a scrap metal dealer, they could be found guilty of an inchoate offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

I will set this in a broader context. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Williams had a very productive meeting, as he acknowledged, on 9 November to discuss this important subject. They were joined by members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Metal, Stone and Heritage Crime: the noble Lord, Lord Birt, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and Andrew Selous MP, together with a representative from the British Metals Recycling Association. I understand that it was a constructive discussion and I hope that the noble Lord was left in no doubt as to the seriousness with which the Government view this crime.

At that meeting it was agreed that enforcement of the 2013 Act is key to tackling metal theft. The Government are committed to supporting partners to increase the enforcement of the Act. The Home Office provided £177,000 of seed-corn funding in the last financial year to establish the National Infrastructure Crime Reduction Partnership. The partnership is spearheaded by the British Transport Police and was set up to better co-ordinate police forces and other agencies to tackle metal theft from rail, telecoms and utilities companies.

At the meeting on 9 November, concerns were also raised about the disparity between metal theft figures published by the Office for National Statistics and figures held on the police national computer. We are looking into this and my noble friend Lady Williams—who, by the way, expressed to me that she would have liked to answer the noble Lord’s amendment—will write to the noble Lord when we have clarification on this. However, let me be clear: no one is trying to play down the problem or argue that statistics somehow show things are not as bad as some suggest.

The all-party parliamentary group agreed to provide the Government with a paper setting out its recommendations for tackling metal theft. My noble friend looks forward to receiving this and we will give it careful consideration. The right reverend Prelate and Andrew Selous, who is a Church Commissioner, agreed to see what more could be done to gather data and intelligence about thefts from churches, particularly of lead roofs. That is something that I welcome. I am sure that your Lordships all share my concern about these attacks on our heritage and recognise the particular vulnerability of churches, many of which are in isolated and remote areas. We look forward to continuing to work with the noble Lord and others who have contributed to the work of this all-party group. I hope that he is in no doubt of our commitment in this respect.

In the light of my comments and the undertaking to give sympathetic further consideration to Amendment 292S, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, I will make a couple of comments about the two amendments not in my name. First, I think that we all heard clearly, in answer to my noble friend Lord Bassam and his amendment, that the Government agree with him. The question that my noble friend then posed was: when will the Government act to implement the amendment that he put forward and that the Government say they agree with? That is the key question.

I take the Minister’s point that he will do something before Report—unless I have misrepresented him—or consider it before Report. That is where we start to get into difficulty, because he has moved from doing something to considering it. If the Minister agrees with it, something needs to be done. We have gone past considering it; it is time for action. That is what my noble friend Lord Bassam was saying and I very much agree with him.

I am sure that my noble friend Lord Faulkner will have heard the remarks about dealing with scrap metal, which—irrespective of whether it should have been in this group—is an issue. I think that he will be pleased that the Minister sought to answer those points.

With respect to my amendment, which of course I will withdraw—and I will come to a couple of the points made by other noble Lords—I think that schools will be interested that the Minister says powers are already available to them, notwithstanding the way in which he moved on to powers that we are yet to discuss. Of course, if everyone agrees with them, it will all be solved—that is for another debate later on. The Minister specifically said that powers are already available to schools, should they wish to deal with this issue. That is not how they feel. They feel as though it takes an inordinate amount of time to get anything in place. That is the whole point of what this amendment seeks to do. The Government need to consider how they reassure schools that those powers are available to them to deal quickly with problems that occur.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for their support for the amendment, in the sense of their recognition that it is a two-way street. I accept that it is not unbridled, unqualified support, but it is important.

--- Later in debate ---

Along with the right honourable Theresa May MP, we support these amendments.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendments tabled here and the comments by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

I want to say a little more on the next group of amendments, so I will be quite specific with respect to this group. The example is used of the meaning of “serious disruption” and defining that in the Bill, but this is a problem right the way through Part 3. A number of terms are left either to future regulations or to the discretion of the police.

I will quote not the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because I want to point out to the Committee the Government’s response, which points to a very real problem as we discuss the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights says:

“Using multiple terms that are open to wide interpretation, such as ‘intensity’ and ‘serious unease’”—


okay, it does not say “serious disruption”—

“leaves an excessive degree of judgment in the hands of a police officer. This is likely to prove challenging to the police, who already have significant responsibility for ensuring that demonstrations are lawful and safe. It will also give rise to uncertainty for those organising and participating in demonstrations and fails to provide convincing safeguards against arbitrary or discriminatory use of these powers.”

Surely that is why the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the others who have spoken are trying to give some clarity—I think that was the word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, used—to the legislation, so that the police and others know exactly what the legislation says they can or cannot do. More importantly, this Parliament is legislating for what it thinks is appropriate.

I have to say to the Minister—I do not know whether it is the noble Baroness or the noble Lord responding—that I was very disappointed in the response from the Government last month, before this Committee has discussed and thought about these amendments and listened to the arguments. Bear in mind that the Joint Committee on Human Rights referred to

“multiple terms that are open to wide interpretation”,

so, whatever anybody’s view, there are numerous phrases that people are concerned about. The Government’s response before this Committee met today was: “We reject this entirely.” That is the first sentence of the Government’s response.

Before the debate has happened and any points have been made on amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the Government have rejected it all. What is the point of debates, discussions, arguments, clashes of views and opinions and well-meant and well-intentioned differences if, before we have even discussed it, the Government do not believe that using multiple terms presents a problem and are rejecting that view? It is not a case of “we will consider this”.

I have been a Minister and the normal ministerial response is, “We’re considering this. Some good points have been made and we need to consider how this is best reflected as we take this forward”. You would certainly have said that before a debate or discussion. This is the Government’s own response to the JCHR report that says that using multiple terms is open to wide interpretation.

The concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is that “serious disruption” should be in the Bill. The Government have already rejected it. There is no listening to the debate: “We reject this entirely.” Those are the first four words—unbelievable. I will not say any more than that, because this speaks for itself, but I would like to know from the noble Baroness the Minister, if she is replying, what the point is of us debating these amendments, even if the Government disagree. There is well-put, well-intentioned and sometimes brilliant analysis of some points, but the Government have already rejected it in response to a committee report that says there is a problem with using multiple terms. It is just unbelievable.

They are an elected Government in the other place, and they will get their way. This is a revising Chamber, the purpose of which is to suggest to the Government where they might improve the legislation, even if we do not agree with it. If the Government have rejected this before we have even discussed it, what is the point? “We reject this entirely.” I am speechless about it, to be honest.

In responding to this debate, can the Minister explain who signed that off? Which Minister signed it off? I presume, if I am being fair, that it was missed. But it is a hell of a thing to miss before a debate in Committee, where the use of multiple terms such as “serious disruption”, “alarm” and “distress” concerns us all. Even if the Bill passes, we need some clarity around those terms. I will leave it there. I have more to say on the other groups of amendments, but I very much support what all noble Lords, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, said about this and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have listened to the noble Lord loud and clear. Governments are urged to respond to Select Committee reports within two months, and only last week the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was pressing for the response to the DPRRC. I will say two things, and I will be brief, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the two noble and learned Lords.

The Government are considering the DPRRC’s recommendation to list the definitions in the Bill, and I have listened to the points made loud and clear by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Hope, and will consider them and the strength of their views. I assure noble Lords that we will publish our response to the DPRRC report very soon. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beith, will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The question is that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is in the other group, is it not?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

No. It is a clause stand part. I paused slightly, but if nobody wishes to speak to it—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Is the Clause 58 stand part debate not in the next group?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Clause 58 stands on its own to be either agreed or not agreed. I think perhaps the noble Lord wishes to speak to an amendment. No?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thought they were all grouped together.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Okay, but I think I need to put Clause 58 to the Committee now. The question is—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry. On the Order Paper, it looks as though Clause 58 stand part is the lead amendment. Then there is a series of other amendments and clauses with it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Yes, but I must put the question first. The question is that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

May I speak now? I apologise. I did not mean to be rude.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I did actually pause originally, but nobody spoke.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not used to standing up and speaking. If I was in the other place, I would have shouted out.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Yes, but we do not shout here.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Clearly. That is the problem. No, I am glad that we do not. It is sometimes a bit off-putting when there is a nobody shouting at me when I speak, but there we go.

The serious point I want to make is this. Obviously, we have come to Clauses 58 and 59, which relate to various changes to the law with respect to demonstrations outside Parliament. I want to make a general point, because I have not done that already. Some really fascinating points have been made about public protests: the right to protest and the need to balance that with people’s right to be able to go about their lawful business. Clause 58, headed “Obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament”, extends the area, while Clause 59 is headed “Power to specify other areas as controlled areas” and Clause 60 is headed “Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”.

On Clauses 58 and 59, I think it was my noble friend Lord Dubs who made the point that many of us, including me, may well have not been able to protest if this law had been there. I am old enough to remember coming here, during a formative time for me as a local councillor in Cotgrave, which was a Nottinghamshire pit village, to demonstrate about pit closures, both in the mid-1980s, in and around the miners’ strike, and at the beginning of the 1990s, when the pit closure programme happened.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I hope noble Lords are satisfied as to why I believe these amendments are unnecessary and will support the Government’s efforts to faithfully implement the recommendation of the Law Commission. I commend Clauses 58 to 60 to the Committee.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know whether it is for me to move the first amendment in the group.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will get there.

Clause 58 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this is my first contribution on this Bill in your Lordships’ House. It is nice to be back.

I am pleased to join my noble friends replying to the debate by setting out the position of the Opposition on the new clauses before us. First, I want to say that this is no way to do business, as has been said. To introduce clauses of such magnitude, complexity and controversy to a Bill in the House of Lords, with the Bill already having left the elected House, is just wrong. It is no way to treat the House of Commons, where the Government have a huge majority; no way to treat the House of Lords; no way to treat Parliament; and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, no way to treat the public, whatever their view on the matters before us today.

If the Government felt that they needed these powers, they should have introduced a separate Bill in the Commons and treated Parliament, not least the elected House, with some respect. None of us wants to be here at this late hour but the Government have left us no opportunity to do otherwise.

I make it clear that we do not support these clauses that have been added to the Bill in Committee today, and we expect the Government to withdraw them. I also want to be clear that when we come to the Motion on the order in which we will consider the clauses on Report, we expect that these clauses will not be considered until the new year in the last part of our Report-stage consideration of the Bill. If the government Motion does not put that down clearly, I will move a Motion to achieve just that, and I think we will be successful in getting that Motion through the House. I hope the Minister can confirm that these clauses will be debated in the new year at the end of Report.

The Government are creating problems for themselves, and we have seen by their actions in recent weeks that that is nothing new. As I said, the Government are introducing at the last minute clauses that we are not able to consider properly, even today. They were published just a week ago. That is totally unacceptable.

I want to be clear that I condemn the actions of the Insulate Britain protesters. Their tactics are wrong and counterproductive. We have seen images of protesters gluing themselves to roads and people desperate to get their relatives to hospital, and that is completely wrong. I support the right to protest. I have protested, marched, sung, waved placards, stood in line and locked arms with the best of them, and have been doing so for 43 years. Having strong views, being passionate about what you believe in and making your voice heard are good things in a democracy; that is what living in a democracy is about. The Government must recognise that, even though sometimes the protesters do things they do not like. That can be irritating—as my noble friend Lord Coaker said, we can all be irritated when we cannot get across the bridge to come into Parliament or go down the road—but, equally, the way that this has been done is counterproductive and completely wrong.

My honourable friend the Member for Tottenham, Mr David Lammy, said:

“The police have got to have the powers to deal with these issues … endangering lives, creating a situation in which an ambulance travelling with a patient can’t get to the hospital—someone ended up with paralysis as a result of some of these actions—I’m afraid is totally, totally unacceptable.”


I agree with him entirely on that. It is right that the police have the powers that they need to deal with this unacceptable behaviour—but what powers do they genuinely need? What powers are missing? What powers would be effective? What would be the impact of what the Government are suggesting?

It is crucial to remember that although we are responding only to one particularly crass protest, the law that we are debating tonight would not apply to that one crass protest but to all peaceful protest, and that is the issue here. We must be thoughtful and get it right, and that is why the Government’s handling of this issue is so wrong. For me, the key question is: is none of the powers at the disposal of the police and law enforcement today fit for purpose? Is there nothing that can be done? I have key concerns about stop and search and the proposed disruption orders, and a number of questions for the Minister.

I hope that she can set out for us the organisations—the police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council or the police and crime commissioners—that have been demanding these powers and these specific tools in front of us tonight. Can the Minister give us more details about why the protesters cannot be dealt with under Acts such as the Public Order Act 1986? Why is it not sufficient? I thought—maybe I am wrong—that, under that Act, if a senior police officer reasonably believes that actions will give cause for serious disruption, they can give directions about where a protest can be held and for how long, and it is an offence to breach those conditions. Can that not limit this action? Maybe I am wrong, and they have got that.

Regarding lock-ons, are we really suggesting that if I go on a protest with my noble friend Lord Coaker, and we hold arms together—lock on—we are committing an offence? Are we suggesting that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If we bring the equipment.

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

Yes, absolutely. Are we really suggesting that? Lock-ons are not new, but what is the basis being used here for dealing with these protesters? Is it only, for example, about taking attachments such as glue or locks? I think I have a padlock sitting on my desk in the office; this is just nonsense. These clauses would affect just two people together; that would have prevented the suffragettes protesting. When we do tours in Parliament, we often stop in St Stephen’s Hall and show our guests the statue that the suffragettes locked themselves on to; we talk about it. Clearly that would have been an offence then, and it is an offence now. If you locked yourself on to the Downing Street gate, I am sure that would be an offence now, so why do we not have the powers already?

Of course, we have powers, so I want to understand why we need to do this. Many people have mentioned the pledge by the Prime Minister in the 2015 election. He was going to

“lie down … in front of those bulldozers”

to stop the third runway. He has pledged other things as well. He would be potentially criminalising himself if he went and did that.

On suspicion-less stop and search, and the serious disruption prevention orders, the Government are mirroring laws that currently exist for serious violence and knife crime. Unless I am wrong, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am, these measures apply to peaceful protesters, not people carrying knives or causing violence, and that is a huge issue for us. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, a Member on the Conservative Benches. I looked at some of the points made by the committee. It said:

“We consider that new section 342V contains an extreme example of a power to issue guidance on the exercise of statutory functions. It allows the Secretary of State to influence the exercise by the police of functions that could prove to be highly controversial—including identifying persons in respect of whom the courts may make serious disruption prevention orders under which people who have not been convicted of any offence—and are not considered to be at risk of offending—may nonetheless be made subject to restrictions on liberty backed by criminal penalties.”


That is pretty extreme, and that is being suggested by the party opposite. I hope that the Government will read very carefully what is being suggested here by the committee.

In conclusion, it is very important that we do not consider these issues until the new year. These are very controversial proposals, whether you agree with them or not, and the fact that we are debating them at 1 o’clock in the morning is not a good place for any of us to be. We need to ensure that they are discussed in the new year and that we keep scrutinising them. I hope the Government will listen to the debate tonight and to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee, and will come back on Report to ensure they temper these measures, because at the moment they are totally unacceptable and would not be passed by the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Sorry, can I just ask a question? Does this change make any difference? The only reason I ask is because my noble friend Lord Kennedy and I—we are very good friends—looked at this and did not understand it properly, in particular, where it said

“in the heading of the second column, for ‘1 October 1992’ substitute ‘1 May 1984’”.

Given that that is eight years earlier, does that make any difference if you were fined during that period? Will you now get a fine in the post, or will something happen to you? Is it retrospective or does it not make a difference? I just worry that, because of the lateness of the hour, we pass something and then in a month or two—or even three or four months—we find that lots of people start moaning and complaining, quite rightly, that they have suddenly had a letter in the post. Can the noble and learned Lord just explain that to us?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I think that I can assist: the provision is not truly retrospective. The Sentencing Act 2020 makes it clear that the repeal of relevant provisions by the Act for the purpose of consolidating sentencing law into the Sentencing Code should not change how the law operates. I hear the noble Lord’s concerns, including that this matter is coming out so late. I will raise it with my noble friend in the Ministry of Justice and he will communicate with the noble Lord in order that these matters can hopefully be clarified to the noble Lord’s satisfaction.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is very helpful. I thank the noble and learned Lord.

Amendment 321 agreed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for bringing this amendment to the Committee, particularly in such a selfless way in that she said that she was neither a Catholic nor particularly religious. Seeing the arrival of Sir David Amess’s body at the House this evening was very moving, and our thoughts are with his family. I thank the noble Baroness for saying that she was not second-guessing the police officers at the scene of that terrible tragedy, but, as she said, there was a local priest who was not allowed to give the last rites.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds gave a very moving and sensitive speech, and I agree with much of what he said. I should declare an interest both as a Christian but not a Roman Catholic and as a police officer who served for more than 30 years. Religious faith is important to people, but so is bringing offenders to justice, particularly those responsible for offences where fatal injuries or injuries expected to be fatal are inflicted. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, was extremely powerful in giving first-hand experience of that tension between the need to preserve evidence in order to convict those responsible and wanting to address the needs of the dying person and their family.

Securing forensic evidence is often vital to the identification and prosecution of offenders, as in the case of Sir David Amess. I agree that there needs to be a meeting of police and religious leaders—not just Roman Catholics—to ensure that both sides understand the needs of the other. Police officers should have a real understanding of the religious needs of people and the religious leaders should understand the needs of the police in these circumstances. As I said this afternoon in Oral Questions, surely there must be a role for government in bringing these two sides together, in facilitating this understanding and in ensuring that, after this understanding has been reached, operational police officers share it and know how to respond in these very difficult situations.

Interestingly, in groups of amendments that are to come, I refer to the valuable lessons from Northern Ireland to which I do not think we are paying enough attention. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her remarks.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what a moving and powerful debate we have had this evening. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her noble friend will have been moved by it as well. The real challenge that has been presented to the Minister and the Government is how to capture what has been said in this Chamber tonight in relation to the practice that takes place in very difficult and challenging circumstances.

I am not going to rush this, and I am pleased that noble Lords have not rushed this either, as this is too important a debate to be rushed. In speaking to their amendment, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Masham, spoke in such a way that gave respect to the awfulness of what happened with David Amess. I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses. Out of the horror of that situation, they are trying to make something positive happen in future. We have all been moved by that. The challenge for the Government is how to do something about it.

I say gently to the Minister that the system will respond in a bureaucratic, almost insensitive way, by saying, “It’s really difficult, Minister. It’s very tough to do something about this.” This is one of those situations that requires the system to respond. Human needs to speak to system and make it work, and that is not easy—it really is not.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, brought her perspective from Northern Ireland. She did incredible work there in trying to ensure that, among the terrorist atrocities, somehow or other there was comfort for the dying and bereaved, as well as the pursuit of justice. That was a beacon in that situation, and they made it happen there. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, talked about the situation in his own family. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made a very moving, personal statement about the horror of what happened to her and the tension between trying to comfort the dying while ensuring that the police were allowed to do their work.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made a brilliant speech. I am not a lawyer so, when I spoke just now, I spoke as a politician who demands that the system works. There are brilliant lawyers on both sides of this Chamber who can dissect the law; that is not me. I say to those with legal expertise, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I may not have that legal expertise, but I know what the public would expect the system and the law to do. I know how they would expect the legal system, the courts and the police to respond, and how they would expect the system to work.

The phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, used was, “Who owns the death?” Who owns it? I will talk about myself because that is easier to do. Maybe I have got this wrong, but my sense is that, if I were attacked in the street and stabbed—God forbid that this happens to any of us, but if it happened to me and I was dying—I would not want a police officer ensuring that the crime scene was not compromised. If my wife, or my children, or my grandparents were nearby, that is who I would want to come. I would not care if the crime scene was compromised; I would not.

I know that that is difficult for the police because the police will want—as, of course, in generality, we would all want—the perpetrator to be caught, put before the courts and dealt with. I am just saying what Vernon Coaker, a human being, would want: I would want my family or my friend, if they were nearby, to be allowed to come and see me and talk to me, in the way that no doubt the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds has had to do on many occasions. I would want them to give me comfort, and to give me a sense that I could say goodbye properly to my loved ones.

I do not know what that means for the law, to be honest, or what it means for the guidance, but I do not believe that it is impossible to learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, laid out, from other countries or jurisdictions, or from what is done elsewhere, to find a means of balancing those two priorities in a more sensitive way than perhaps we see at the moment. That is all that this Chamber is asking for—and that is what the Minister needs to demand from the system. The system will say, “It’s tough, it’s difficult. We need to do that, but we have also got to preserve the crime scene.” The Chamber is saying, “Yes, preserve the crime scene; yes, let’s catch the perpetrators, but not at the expense of everything else.” Let it not be at the expense of human beings knowing what is best for themselves—of individuals at the point of death being able to choose who they want to see.

I suggest that the majority of us would want our family with us, even if it meant some compromise to the crime scene. That is what I think and what I believe this Chamber is saying and demanding. The debate has been incredibly moving; people have laid out their souls. They have done it with a sense of purpose, to say to the law and the system: it needs to change; this cannot happen again. If this had happened to somebody else, I believe, as somebody else said, that David Amess would be saying the same as the rest of us. Maybe that is a fitting tribute to him as well.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker; this has been one of the loveliest debates that I have ever been privy to in this Chamber. As his family prepares to say goodbye and his body lies in the Crypt just yards away, may we all spare a moment to think about David Amess, and the tragic way in which he died. It was absolutely senseless; it has shocked us all.

As noble Lords have said, we must extend our thanks to Essex Police and the Metropolitan Police for their quick and comprehensive response, and apprehending and charging the alleged culprit. I also bring out for special mention my thanks to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving this amendment, to my noble friend Lady Newlove, whose testimony with her first-hand experience was deeply moving, and to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has shared such experience in this area, particularly in Northern Ireland, and how it has been dealt with day in and day out for decades.

As a Catholic, I understand the importance of extreme unction, absolution and viaticum for those close to death. However, this is not just about Catholics, of course, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said. To answer my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point about who owns a death, we have to strike a sensitive balance. Humanity and sensitivity need to be shown to families and the person who is dying. That is the balance that we need to strike here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for raising the important issue of cuckooing. This is when criminals, mainly drug dealers, take over the homes of vulnerable people. It is a very serious and not uncommon problem, as the figures cited by the noble Lord gave witness to. I look forward to the Minister explaining why this amendment is not necessary or what alternative the Government propose.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I note the work that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has done on modern slavery over many years, and thank him for it. It is right for us to acknowledge that in speaking to this amendment.

I want to draw particular attention to the section of the noble Lord’s amendment that covers something that is often not recognised to the degree it should be when it comes to county lines gangs’ operations and the way cuckooing works. Proposed new sub-paragraph (ii) talks about when a person

“is unable to give free and informed consent”.

That is the crucial bit. Too often, people are asked, “Why have you allowed this to happen? Why have you let them take over your property?” It is almost as though they have given their consent. But they are sometimes so frightened that they give their consent because, if they do not, the consequences will be such that they live in fear. Somehow, the law does not seem to recognise that.

Proposed new paragraph (c)(ii) refers to someone being unable to give “free and informed consent”. This is absolutely crucial to stopping the offence of cuckooing. People sometimes appear almost as though they have left a property of their own free will, saying, “Here you are. Come into my property. Use it for drugs and county lines operations.” Then, sometimes—not always, but sometimes—the police say, “Well, what did you do about it? Why didn’t you stop it?” That does not reflect the real world. People are terrified; they are frightened. They are told, “If you don’t let us use your property and get out of it, or if you tell anyone about it, we are going to do X, Y or Z to you or to your family.” That is sometimes not recognised, but it is the crucial part of what the noble Lord’s amendment gets at. If we want to stop cuckooing, we must understand that people are coerced into giving their consent; often, the law seems to treat them as though they have given their consent willingly. If we are to stop cuckooing, we must understand the context in which it occurs. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reflect on that.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McColl for introducing this amendment which seeks to provide for a bespoke criminal offence to tackle what is known, as he pointed out, by the evocative name of “cuckooing”. I assure noble Lords that this Government take all forms of exploitation seriously and we are determined to tackle it. I fully sympathise with the intentions behind this amendment, as we recognise that these unscrupulous exploiters often target the most vulnerable in our society to control their homes and, as my noble friend argued most powerfully, against their will to perpetrate a range of crime types. This practice is often associated with drug dealing, which is a feature of county lines offending, but also encompasses other forms of exploitation types such as sex work, which not only devastates the lives of the victim but impacts the local community in which they live.

While I support the sentiments behind this amendment, we remain to be persuaded that a new offence is needed. There are existing powers that can be and are being used to disrupt cuckooing, including the use of civil preventive orders, such as closure orders and criminal behaviour orders, breach of which is a criminal offence. As to the criminal law, there are offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which may be charged, specifically those under Section 4 relating to the supply of controlled drugs and under Section 8 relating to the occupier of premises knowingly permitting the production or supply of drugs from their property. The offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group in Section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 may also be relevant. That said, this is an area of the criminal law which we continue to examine.

Moreover, I am sure my noble friend would agree that were there to be a new offence, Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act is not the proper place for it. That section deals with offences where a person exercises control over another person to hold them in slavery or servitude, or requires them to perform forced or compulsory labour. The focus is on controlling another person and not their property or belongings. Having said all that, we recognise the seriousness of this phenomenon, and we will continue to look into it and support law enforcement partners in their efforts to tackle this malicious crime. In the light of this assurance, I hope my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment is unreasonable, impractical and unnecessary and we oppose it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, interesting points have been raised by Members around the Chamber. I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris about the need for data; how you collect it and what data you collect is always the issue, but data is essential, obviously. We have some concerns around this amendment regarding its breadth and the inclusion of victims. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, to require someone who is a victim of any crime, from theft of a pet up to violent robbery, to record their sex at birth in order to report that crime and interact with the criminal justice system is, in my view, quite troubling. It may have a significant effect on anybody potentially coming forward if that is an actual requirement of every single victim of every single crime. I think it may well act as an impediment to their coming forward and that is a consideration.

Having said that, there are some concerns around certain types of crime, namely rape and sexual violence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about what the data says, but I think the impact on victims of how these crimes are recorded does vary between police forces in a way that is not helpful either. I did a little research, and I just preface this by saying that the only research I could find was a couple of years old, so if it is out of date, I apologise, but it did point to a problem around this.

“Police forces are recording suspected and convicted rapists as female if they no longer wish to identify with their male birth sex. Six forces”—


I will not name them—

“disclosed under freedom of information laws that if someone is arrested for or convicted of rape, the official record will state the gender they chose to identify themselves as. A further five forces … did not answer the question directly but each said they recorded gender in line with the person’s wishes.”

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what that data would tell us, I do not think it is helpful to have such a stark difference between lots of different forces. That goes to the point that my noble friend Lady Morris made, unless I misunderstood her, about the consistency of data that can be applied in a way that means we can learn from it and make judgments about it. Those are the only comments I would make on this amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Wasserman and others for explaining this amendment, which relates to the recording of sex and gender by the police.

The Government do not currently stipulate how a victim’s or offender’s sex at birth or gender identity must be recorded by the police. It is an operational matter for each individual police force to decide what information to record in cases where a crime is committed, taking into account any relevant national guidance. There are no other instances across government where there is a mandatory requirement to record both a person’s sex as registered at birth as well as their acquired gender, if that is applicable. The Office for Statistics Regulation is clear that it is for each department to decide when and how it collects data, including data on both sex and gender.

We have already stated that we do not plan to require biological sex to be recorded across the criminal justice system in our response to a recent petition calling for the biological sex of violent and sexual offenders to be so recorded. The response cited the practical difficulties in recording biological sex, some of which have been cited this evening, as well as the implications for those with a gender recognition certificate as justification, the implications of which I will touch on later.

I understand that this issue has received media attention, with the media reporting that there have been cases of sexual offences committed by transgender women where these crimes, which are traditionally male crimes, have been recorded as being committed by women. The Daily Mail reported that the Home Office is working with police to develop a new procedure for officers to record the sex of criminals in order to ensure that crime statistics are more accurate.

As noted in much of this reporting, the Home Office has already started work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to promote a standardised approach—a phrase that lots of noble Lords have used—to the recording of all protected characteristics, which is currently at an early stage. Further, the Office for Statistics Regulation has issued draft guidance for the collection of sex and gender data for public bodies. This work should bring greater accuracy and consistency of the recording of sex and gender and allow the police to understand how best to collect it. I think it is through these processes, rather than legislation, that it is appropriate to improve the accuracy of the recording of sex and gender.

There are also a number of legal concerns arising from the amendment. It is unclear why the Government would need to mandate the uniform recording of this information regarding both alleged victims and perpetrators for all offences, and how this would be considered both necessary and proportionate for operational purposes. Accordingly, it could amount to an unlawful interference in someone’s right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The requirement might also breach Article 14 on the basis that it amounted to discrimination where transgender individuals are concerned. It is not clear, due to the scope of the amendment, that such a requirement could be lawfully justified.

I put it to the Committee that legislating so that the police routinely record this type of data is not the solution to the problem of standardising how sex and gender are recorded. Reasonable and appropriate actions are already being taken to address this that do not carry the same potential consequences as mandating it by law. There will be more to be said on this in the coming months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, but I hope that for now I have said enough to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.