Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in this mammoth omnibus Bill, there is an uncomfortable shift in the balance of power away from citizens and towards the state and the police. It feels like a lockdown hangover. The suspension of civil liberties for a public health emergency was bad enough, if understandable, but now, using the language of safety, protecting citizens and fear—again, although fear of crime this time—I am worried that the Government think the new normal should be less freedom and fewer rights. There are lots of examples of this throughout the Bill, but, for now, I shall confine my remarks to Part 3, which should be removed in its entirety from the Bill.

That is because, first, despite the reassurance from the Minister, which I know she means sincerely, I cannot see how, having read the Bill, it is not glaringly obvious that the Bill will damage hard-fought-for historic rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Other noble Lords have explained that very well. Secondly, why is Part 3 necessary at all? There are plenty of laws on the statute book which would deal with the problems that the Government have identified.

I realise that this debate comes hot on the heels of Extinction Rebellion’s rather egregious disruption to the M25 and the lives of so many drivers. There has been a series of utterly galling and self-indulgent actions of late, and it becomes easy to conclude, as many do, “lock ‘em up and throw away the key”. Do not get me wrong, I find that these stunts are misanthropic and narcissistic, and I think it is a real problem that they are driven by the anti-democratic instinct that because the majority are allegedly being too slow at adopting net-zero or hairshirt eco-policies, they must be coerced, bullied and annoyed into submission by these demonstrations. However, I do not think the answer to that anti-democratic instinct is for the Government to introduce anti-democratic legislation.

The truth is that the statute book is bulging with laws that could be used to ensure that when protest tips over into bringing society to a halt, it can be dealt with. If statues are pulled down, buildings defaced and roads blocked, we already have laws against that. Criminal damage, obstructing highways, hindering emergency vehicles—that is all against the law. Cressida Dick even conceded, on a review of the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, that the powers of the Public Order Act 1986 were sufficient to deal with them.

Surely the question for the Home Secretary is: why are the police not enforcing the existing laws? Why do they so often seem to stand by and watch when obvious lawbreaking happens? Why do the police seem instead to be rather zealous when, for example, they are scouring social media for allegedly offensive tweets? They become very efficient at adding innocent citizens’ names to the utterly illiberal non-crime hate incident database, as has already been mentioned, and they are very energetic when they are parading their own social justice and diversity credentials on Instagram, but they seem somehow hesitant when they are policing some demonstrations.

I appreciate that that comes over as a crass caricature by me—some people might not be surprised—but I note that it is the way it is widely discussed and perceived. Many people in the public believe that the police have become politicised and that they treat demonstrations differentially: some with kid gloves, some with real brute force. Yet here in the Bill, in Clause 55, we are asking the police to have even more discretionary powers to decide what protests should be clamped down on, what should be allowed, et cetera. This can only exacerbate the situation and put the police under even more political pressure, and it is why so many front-line officers are themselves worried about the Bill.

The police, for example, will have to decide which protests “may” or “risk” causing too much noise or result in disruption, as we have heard. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, very wittily reminded us, those who are not familiar with demonstrations should note that protests are, by their very nature, noisy. That is the point. They are not sedate garden parties or occasions where you whisper: noise is a crucial way to make your voice heard by the people in power but also, actually, by your fellow citizens, who you are trying to persuade to join you. And the larger the demo, the noisier. One of the noisiest demos that I inadvertently encountered was calling for a second referendum. I was harangued by many people on it. I can assure noble Lords that I did not agree with it, but it was certainly loud, and I defend their right to shout even about an anti-democratic call for a second referendum.

I find it particularly distasteful that Clause 58 widens the geographic scope of curtailing protest around Westminster. Of course parliamentarians need access to their place of work for democracy to function, but this clause has much wider-ranging provisions and creates a de facto buffer zone around the corridors of power to protect the Westminster village from encountering dissenters. The Government regularly rail against student snowflakes retreating into safe spaces, and now they suggest turning the Palace of Westminster into a giant safe space and echo chamber. That would be a terrible mistake.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard part one
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I entirely accept that this is a real problem, but real problems require real solutions that have some chance of being effective. I cannot imagine anyone who commits an assault on a police officer or emergency worker actually knowing what the maximum sentence is for that offence—still less that the Government are currently increasing it. That information might just get through to the newspapers for a week or two, but there is no measurable deterrent effect from something that people do not know much about anyway. Most people must realise that if they get caught assaulting an emergency worker they will get into some kind of trouble, but whatever impels these dreadful assaults is clearly not likely to be affected by what is happening here.

What happens when you increase the maximum sentence? If you achieve generally longer sentences, you have made a commitment of resources. The question has reasonably to be asked: is this the best way of spending money to try to stop emergency workers being attacked? We must therefore look at any other measures that you can reasonably take that would have that effect, if, as I contend, there is no evidence that increasing the maximum sentence will lead to any reduction in attacks on emergency workers or police officers.

This is just one of many examples, and there are others that we will perhaps debate more fully later in the Bill, where the Government rush to have something to say—lengthening the maximum sentence certainly looks like having something to say—but it does not have the effect in the real world that we all desire.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am a bit too squeamish to discuss Amendment 9 but I wanted to reflect on Amendments 10 and 11 and to follow on from some of the comments just made about the deterrence factor and expanding how long people are threatened with jail for.

I thought the Bar Council raised some very useful challenges for us to consider in relation to the section of the Bill dealing with assaults on emergency workers. The Bar Council asks us to consider if increasing the maximum penalty for such assaults is necessary or commensurate or whether it will work. It notes the limited evidence. I thought when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who I was very compellingly convinced by, that it can feel a bit like virtue signalling rather than tackling the problem.

I was particularly interested in a slightly different point from the one that has been made and was struck by what the Bar Council said in relation to, I think, these amendments: there is a danger of creating a disparity between the penalties for attacks on emergency workers and those on other workers, and indeed a disparity between attacks on emergency workers and those on members of the public. There is an offence of common assault that should be considered a serious offence whoever is on the receiving end of it. Whoever is attacked, I would want the law to deal with it.

We heard from the right reverend Prelate how, if you start saying that an attack on this particular group of workers has to have a particular length of sentence, that might make other groups of workers—in this instance, in prisons—feel as though they are being neglected or somehow are not as important. We therefore have to be nervous about differentiating between categories of workers because that might end up being divisive, implying that front-line workers in some jobs are more important than others.

As a former teacher who has worked in the education sector—I worked with some challenging young people and was on the receiving end of some common assault, let us put it that way—I have been following closely the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, a feminist philosophy academic at Sussex University, whom the police have advised should not return to her place of work on campus because of the danger of violence from some self-styled anti-TERF activists. There have been all sorts of threats and harassment. They even have a special phone number for her to ring. There are other teachers who face this.

I raise that because when it comes to this kind of threat, that kind of potential violence and those kinds of assaults, it does not matter if you are a front-line worker. I do not know why the “emergency” bit should give you an extra penalty. I am not advocating for a special penalty for attacks on education workers. I just do not want people on the front line to feel that some are more important than others.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I none the less think that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and her colleagues are on to something. There is no question but that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right that, under common law, doctor-patient confidentiality is not and has never been absolute. The question is when it is trumped by other considerations, and who decides.

It is always dangerous to suspect what the Minister will say in her eventual reply, but I suspect that she will say reassuring things, and her colleagues will have given her reassuring things to say, about the intention. I am sure that the intention is not for the wholesale trumping of doctor-patient confidentiality. There is no public interest in that and the Government would not want people to take that as the case, because it would be completely counterproductive not just to the effective functioning of public health but to law and order. To give an obvious example, if everyone involved in knife crime feels that there will be no confidentiality whatever in the emergency room or elsewhere, one runs the danger of people not going to get the vital help and emergency care that they need. I know that the Minister will understand that.

Going back to the detail—as this is Committee—when should there be a trumping and who decides? That is a worthwhile, detailed conversation to be explored between organisations such as the General Medical Council and the Minister and her team. Because, while it may not be the Government’s intention to trump common-law principles of ethics and confidentiality en masse, we have to remember of course that statute displaces the common law. If the statute is unclear and people think or perceive that the common law has been trumped and that the decision has been taken completely out of the hands of an individual practitioner on the advice of ethical bodies or ultimately taken out of the hands of a judge and that the principles of confidentially have been totally trumped, we have a problem—and that means the Government have a problem as well.

So I hope that, when the Minister eventually replies to this debate, she will not reject these concerns out of hand and will take on board the possibility of a bit more detailed discussion about when the duties to collaborate and so on should trump confidentiality, when not and, crucially, who is to decide. For my part, I would favour practitioners, properly advised, perhaps by more and further guidance from their professional bodies, and, if necessary in individual cases, by the order of a judge, possibly sought on an ex parte basis, as opposed to anything too wholesale or administrative. That is just my suggestion. I am sure that the Minister and her team will be able to come back with something that meets the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and her colleagues before the next scrutiny stage of the Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very minded to support this series of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, explained, doctor-patient confidentiality is far more than a common-law obligation. It is an ethical duty in a relationship of trust. Will the Minister consider whether the public understand what this aspect of the Bill compromises of that confidentiality?

Our doctors know a lot about us: the most intimate physical details, sometimes our psychological weaknesses, sometimes our darkest fears about life and death matters. While it has been a long time since we offered uncritical deference to our doctors, as patients and at our most vulnerable we are not equal partners and we need to trust that relationship, despite the power imbalance. So it is understandable that the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association are rightly worried that the Bill will smash the principle of confidentiality to bits.

The issue of confidentiality and trust will appear later in Committee in some other amendments that I shall speak to later, but my main question here is: why is this part of the Bill necessary? I genuinely do not understand. People involved in medical practice understand that, while confidentiality is an important legal and ethical duty, it is not an absolute. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, explained, it may be that some doctors get the balance wrong, but doctors are already expected to share confidential information if it is in the public interest, and that includes serious crime. However, this is presently understood as the exception, not the rule. At the moment, doctors need to consider the specific circumstances of what to share to satisfy the intended purpose and when to share it, and they have to weigh up the benefits and harms of disclosure.

Doctors are asked and trusted to exercise their professional judgment and to strike a balance between individual and community rights. I, for one, want to continue to trust medical personnel to make such judgments in good faith. Is the Minister saying that the Government do not trust them on this? It feels like an attack on professional discretion that will undermine doctors in the eyes of the public. At the moment, with the medical profession being under so much pressure and scrutiny—anger over no face-to-face GP appointments, tragic backlogs in hospital treatments—there is already tension between the public and the medical profession. If it comes out that when you go to the doctor, the sacred bond of confidentiality could in fact be expected to be broken, that will be very damaging for no good purpose.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

To back that up, I point out that Oliver Mears, Samson Makele and Liam Allan were three young men who were nearly the victims of miscarriages of justice in those circumstances. If we say that a victim’s phone will be looked at, we are assuming that they are the victim, but it is an ambivalent point while somebody is innocent until proven guilty. We just have to be a little cautious about the language we use, because in one instance the police suppressed information—they had the phone details but did not put it forward—but in the others, it was on the phone that the proof was found. We just need balance. I do not want digital strip searches, but I do not want miscarriages of justice. People are squeamish about looking for evidence on people’s phones because they are presented as victims.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Perhaps I should have said “alleged victim”; that goes to my noble friend’s point. Each case is different, but usually the remedy is through the court process and it is established where the perversion of justice might be taking place. But I thank my noble friend for his point about the alleged victim.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the proposed new clause and I will give it all the support I can. The arguments put forward by my noble friends are, frankly, unarguable against.

There are three propositions that I think are affronted by this notification of non-crime hate incidents. The first is the chilling effect on free speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated that very clearly. One has to be assured of the right to express one’s views without the risk of having this notification made against one.

Secondly, one has to recognise that these are very long-standing notifications, which can have a seriously prejudicial impact on individuals. That is thoroughly undesirable, especially as the individual has no right of appeal or an effective way of challenging. Judicial review, for most people, is not an effective way of challenging.

Thirdly, there is the point made by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. There is no statutory guidance; it is local police policy which influences the way these notifications are made. That is inherently unjust, having regard to the impact that this could have.

Finally, I welcome very much that the regulations are to be made by the affirmative procedure. However, as I have said in this House and elsewhere on many occasions, while that is a good thing in the sense that the comments made by your Lordships and those in the other place can be heeded, we do not have the power to amend the statutory instrument. I have long argued that this House and Parliament in general should have the power to amend the contents of statutory instruments. This is a good example of where that would be beneficial.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically endorse these amendments and thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Pannick, Lord Macdonald and Lord Sandhurst, for raising this crucial issue. The issue of non-crime incidents has been of concern to a number of us for some years and it is good that it is getting some parliamentary attention at last. I particularly credit those organisations and publications that have persistently raised it in the public realm and whose research informed my remarks, especially the Free Speech Union, of which I am on the advisory council, the anti-racist campaign Don’t Divide Us, and Spiked online.

Too many avoid the issue because it is rather tricky and contentious. One of the reasons it is difficult to raise is because nobody wants to look as though they are being soft on hate incidents. However, I am concerned that this in itself has led to a degree of chilling self-censorship and allowed some confusion to arise about what is and is not a crime when the police are involved.

When the public hear the phrases “hate”, “hate crime” or “hate incident”, they instinctively think of, for example, someone being beaten up because of their skin colour or being harassed in the street because they are gay, and they are appalled and shocked. We assume the worst kind of bigotry and our instinct is that something must be done. However, it is not so clear cut. According to the hate crime operational guidance issued by the College of Policing, hate crime is often an entirely subjective category, based on the perception of the alleged victim; I will come back to this.

What is extraordinary about the guidance on hate crime is what the police consider to be successfully tackling hate crime. The guidance says:

“Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate”.


That completely befuddled me. The guidance says instead that the measure of success for the police is

“to increase the opportunities for victims to report”.

I fear that, in this act of enthusiasm to get more people to report hate, the police have muddied any clear distinction between what is criminal and what is not.

The focus on reporting initiatives led earlier this year to rainbow-coloured hate crime police cars patrolling local areas, with the aim of giving communities the confidence to come forward and report hate crime. However well-meaning, such awareness-raising initiatives often encourage people to come forward and report things that are not crimes at all. In fact, earlier this year, a police digital ad van trawled around the Wirral, warning that

“being offensive is an offence”.

Actually, being offensive is not a criminal offence. After a backlash, local police clarified that this was an error. Why did the police get it so wrong in terms of what is a crime?

This is not an isolated incident. A few years ago, Greater Glasgow Police tweeted an ominous warning:

“Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend.”


This was posted alongside a graphic that warned social media users to consider whether their treats were true, hurtful, unkind, necessary and then, right at the end, illegal. Then there was the South Yorkshire Police Hate Hurts campaign, which asked people to report any “offensive or insulting” social media posts to police officers. None of these is a crime and, in relation to a Bill named the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, it is a concern if the police do not know what is or is not a hate crime, so much so that Cheshire Constabulary recently admitted to conflating crime and non-crime in its hate crime statistics.

This amendment can potentially start unpicking this muddle, because the source of the confusion about what is or is not a crime lies in the creation of the category of non-crime hate incident. As we have heard, this category was established by the College of Policing and its guidance encourages police officers to overreach and police non-crimes. It is worth telling noble Lords how this is posed in the guidance. The NCHI guidance states:

“Where it is established that a criminal offence has not taken place, but the victim or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, it should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident.”


Note the use of the word “victim” to describe the reporter or accuser, when no evidence exists that any crime has been perpetrated against him or her. The victim has to claim only that some action or speech was

“motivated wholly or partially by hostility”.

“Hostility” itself is a vague and subjective term. The guidance continues:

“The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.”


Furthermore, any other person’s perception can be the basis for this, which is even further removed from any real incident, let alone crime.

Finally, the guidance notes:

“Police officers may also identify a non-crime hate incident, even where the victim or others do not.”


Why? It is because:

“Victims … may not be aware that they are a victim of a non-crime hate incident, even though this is clear to others.”


I find this a kind of dystopian, Orwellian, nightmare world. Imagine untangling your way through that; your name, unknown to you, can appear on a database intended for recording details of criminal offences and be subject to checks by vetting officers when you apply for jobs, as we have heard from noble Lords.

I hope noble Lords can see the dangers here. The subjective nature of the NCHI guidelines creates a real possibility of abuse of the system by people acting in bad faith. The NCHI guidance means that unfounded, spurious and malicious reports can be filed and never tested, let alone the fact that this data gathering distracts the police from pursuing real criminals. I was contacted by one person ahead of this debate, who said, “I had a visit from the police because a member of staff offended another member of staff, who works for me. No crime was reported. The police spoke to me for 40 minutes. In the meantime, the 200 pallets that I reported stolen the week before did not generate a phone call or visit.” Then there is the chilling effect of NCHIs on free speech, as other noble Lords have vividly spelled out. NCHIs can act as a threat, a kind of surveillance of free speech, by people who say it will eventually lead to crime. Anyone who is following the fate of gender-critical feminists, who are constantly accused of hate by a particular brand of trans activist, will understand just how damaging that is to free speech.

This Government tell us all the time that they are keen to oppose cancel culture. I fear that these NCHIs inadvertently contribute to that censorious climate of denunciation and the toxic climate of hate, which we are all keen to combat. I therefore urge the Government to consider these amendments carefully and remove this contradictory anomaly, which, I fear, brings the police and criminal law into disrepute.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this, because there are much bigger issues coming up later, but I had seen this in a reverse way. It is not completely clear, if you do not have a QC’s training or legal training of any sort, whether this amendment is trying to help or hinder the collection and retention of data.

To me, this seems like a good opportunity to talk about misogyny and other abusive behaviour that falls short of a criminal offence but none the less should be recorded on a person’s police record. The biggest benefit of retaining that data is that it might help in the future investigation of criminal offences. For example, if someone is a notorious misogynist but it has never reached the threshold of criminality, this will help the police’s line of inquiry if said person is later a suspect in a violent attack against a woman. As we all know, the justice system is biased very strongly against women committing crimes.

What I did agree with from all those offering support for the amendment is that proper oversight is absolutely necessary. There should be some regulation about this, because some of the anecdotes mentioned seem ridiculous. I still have not decided whether I support this; it would depend on how it dealt with proper oversight.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech ranged very broadly indeed. We are in fact debating a complex penal issue where we have a policy that addresses the matter very sensibly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained.

I will add just one point to this debate. It is not difficult to see the danger to people who were registered as male at birth but who are now registered under the Act as female if they were required to be placed in a male prison, as this amendment would require, irrespective of the particular circumstances of their case, as long as they are a sexual or violent offender. It should not need to be emphasised, but I will emphasise it because it is the fact, that many of these people have had hormone treatment, and some of them have had reconstructive surgery that has given them primary and sometimes secondary sexual characteristics of a physical nature. What do the proposers of the amendment think will happen to such people if the Home Office is obliged to place them in a male prison?

Of course we would all agree that, if there is an offender in custody for a suspected violent or sexual offence who is in possession of a gender recognition certificate and poses a risk to others in custody, then specific steps should be taken to isolate and deal with them. But that does not justify or require ignoring a gender recognition certificate in the way the amendment proposes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it has to be said that when I talk to members of the general public and tell them that it is MoJ policy to allow prisoners of a male sex to be housed according to their self-declared gender identity in a women’s prison, irrespective of whether they have taken any legal or medical steps to acquire their gender, that they do not need to have gone through any physical transformation and still retain male genitalia, which we have heard lots about already in this debate, and that they do not even need to have obtained a gender recognition certificate—they need just to declare that they are women and demand that they are moved to the women’s estate, and it is seriously considered—they are aghast. It falls under the category of, “Has the world gone mad?”

That common-sense response might not feel appropriate when discussing legislation, but in this instance it may help us to look at this issue in practical, real-life terms, not just in abstractions. That is why I welcome the amendment very strongly. Although it does not resolve all my concerns, I welcome its modest, narrow aim of removing the most egregious aspect of this situation: allowing male prisoners who identify as trans but have convictions of violence or sexual offences against women to live with women prisoners. There really is no point in the Government issuing strategies and grand words about violence against girls and women if the same Government have no qualms about letting rapists share the same confined living quarters as vulnerable women in prison who, let us be frank, cannot leave or escape because they are locked up by the state. This amendment’s focus is on convicted sex offenders and it is urgent that the Government take notice.

It is important to note that when gender-critical commentators and academics raise qualms about the general policy of housing transgender prisoners in the women’s estate, they are often dubbed transphobic and accused of holding a prejudiced view of all trans women as sexual predators, but this is a malign caricature. At this point I give a shout-out of solidarity to Professor Jo Phoenix, an esteemed and conscientious criminologist who has been harassed and traduced for raising such legitimate concerns.

Wherever one stands on the general issue, this amendment is specific and cannot be accused of implying that all natal men, however they identify, are a sexual threat to women, because that would not be true. We are talking only about convicted sex offenders and those guilty of violence. I still hope this probing amendment might encourage the Government to look more closely at a range of issues in this area. I particularly want the Government to consider whether the Ministry of Justice’s involvement over a period of time with the controversial lobbying group Stonewall, which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, as with so many public bodies, may—just may—have led to the skewing of policies in a particular direction.

For example, I know how keen this Government are on data and statistics, but as Kate Coleman, the founder of Keep Prisons Single Sex, has noted—this just seems incredible to me—the MoJ admits that it does not know how many prisoners identify as trans because, with a gender recognition certificate, they are counted by their new legal gender. I am not sure how the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, can be so sure of the statistics she quotes, because the tools designed to assess any threat posed by male prisoners who identify as trans women cannot be picked up accurately. If someone with a GRC attacks a female prisoner, it will be recorded as an assault by a woman on another woman.

I also want to query who is listened to in this discussion on what is obviously a clash of rights. In the course of the recent High Court ruling we have heard about, Lord Justice Holroyde outlined the need to balance

“the subjective concerns of women prisoners”

with

“the rights of transgender women in the prison system.”

This made it sound as though the women, the biological women, were all being overly subjective, and the transgender women had rights. Describing one side as subjective and the other with rights misses a crucial point, because that transgender woman has an identity that is not an objective fact but a subjective desire and then a declaration. Why are women prisoners’ subjective but rational concerns afforded less weight here?

When the High Court acknowledged that women prisoners may well be worried and “scared” about sharing prison accommodation with male-bodied prisoners, the court said that that fear was not enough to outweigh the desire of some male prisoners to be housed with women. I wonder: when did the prison estate, or indeed the law, allow its policies to be dictated by prisoners’ desires? I have worked with prisoners over a number of years, particularly with Debating Matters Beyond Bars. Many of the prisoners I have worked with have declared that they desire decent prison education. They desire retraining and better conditions. The prison authorities certainly did not accommodate their desires, so why are these desires accommodated when it comes to the trans issue?

Finally, I am keen that the Government look carefully, and use this probing amendment to do so, at how staff in prisons understand the issue of sex and gender in the context of training. The MoJ policy entitled The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender advises staff to complete an “eLearning module” on transgender identity. One of the training courses is named intersecting identities. I have looked at these, and it all rather terrifies me. It is one-sided, jargon-ridden and ideological. I hope this amendment might point the Government to raise and review the whole issue. For now, at least, a very modest amendment should be taken seriously if they really mean they care about protecting women from violent men.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to intervene briefly. I support this amendment. To me, it is morally wrong for a physical man to be in a woman’s prison. It is as simple as that. If he has identified himself as a woman, and deserves to be in prison, there should be special facilities that do not bring people of that sort into close proximity with women or—if they are in danger—with men.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I want to respond to that because I think another point that follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said is that the other argument that comes up all the time is that if you raise these issues you want a culture war, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was implying.

On terminology, if we are all going to get offended, I do not particularly find descriptions of people as “cis” very helpful either, so when it comes to language issues, the point is that there are tensions that exist outside this place. We know that and it is disingenuous to pretend that there are not.

The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that this is a question of administrative duties of care. This amendment has been very carefully worded in a very narrow way about a very specific issue. What is the objection to that? This is precisely a responsible administrative duty of care, regardless of any hyperbole that people do not like other people using even when they use it.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. If I offended her in any way by my remarks—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Not me.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

—I apologise. Clearly one of the reasons this is so sensitive is that, beyond this Committee and this Chamber, there is not yet even a settled courtesy about some of these matters. If I have offended any Member of the Committee, I apologise.

I was born a woman, and I still identify as a woman, but I have always tried to disagree well with people, including those on the Benches opposite, who I disagree with across the piece. I have never seen all men as a threat, and I have certainly never seen people of other races, sexualities or sex as a threat, and I am not calling anybody names in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Can I just clarify one thing? Many trans people do not agree with some of the orthodoxies that have become associated with trans activism. The inference was that some people possibly have a particular view because they have not met any trans people. That is not true. Whole swathes of trans people do not go along with a particular political opinion, for example in relation to prisons, as in this instance. I am concerned that it is not seen that those people who argue a gender-critical view are doing it because they are ignorant and have not got out enough.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I hear and understand what the noble Baroness says. However, on this amendment, I am clear. We oppose Amendment 214 from the Front Bench. We do not support the noble Lord’s amendment, but we understand completely the concerns that he and other noble Lords have. However, we feel that the risks that the noble Lord seeks to minimise are already minimal, and that other risks that need to be managed are not covered by this amendment.

The amendment seeks to amend the Gender Recognition Act to reduce the risk that transgender prisoners present to others. This is neither necessary nor desirable for the following reasons. First, there are very few transgender prisoners. In a data collection exercise between March and May 2018, only 44 of 124 public and private prisons said that they had any transgender prisoners at all. The fact that there are so few transgender people in prison is also an indication of the level of offending by transgender people, the seriousness of that offending and the extent of the threat that they pose.

Secondly, the risk of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide is far greater among the transgender community than it is among those who are not transgender. Clearly, in a prison setting, the risk of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide is likely to be higher for all inmates; for transgender prisoners, it is likely to be very high indeed. In November 2015, an inmate who said that she would kill herself if she was sent to a male jail was found dead. Vicky Thompson, aged 21, died a week ago at the all-male HMP Leeds. Friends said that Thompson, who was born male but had identified as a woman since she was a teenager, had asked to be sent to a female jail in Wakefield. This is the sort of impact that having an unbalanced amendment, such as the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, can have on transgender people.

Thirdly, if the Prison Service thinks that the risk presented by a transgender prisoner is such that they should be housed in a prison contrary to their legal gender, it can allocate them to a part of the estate that does not match their legally recognised gender. The decision must be taken after consultation with experts and at a high level, but it is possible.

A number of noble Lords have referred to the High Court judgment in July 2021, where lawyers for a female inmate in the female prison estate brought a judicial review against the MoJ. The MoJ argued that the policy pursues a legitimate aim, including

“facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people’s mental and physical health.”

It is interesting that I am actually quoting from the same case as other noble Lords have quoted from. Lord Justice Holroyde said:

“It is not possible to argue that the defendant should have excluded from women’s prisons all transgender women”—


as this amendment proposes. He continued:

“To do so would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender.”


The case was not actually about excluding all transgender women; it was about challenging how policies applied to those who had been convicted of serious or violent offences against women—as the noble Lord’s amendment does.

The Lord Justice went on to say that trans women’s offending history was a factor that the existing policies were required to consider. He said:

“the need to assess and manage all risks is repeatedly emphasised”

throughout existing MoJ policies. He continued:

“In an exceptional case, a high risk transgender woman, even with a GRC, can be transferred to the male estate because of the higher level of security which is there available.”


Therefore, there is a mechanism to do exactly what the amendment is seeking to do, but on a risk-assessed basis.

The court also heard that expert panels are also involved in the process when allocating transgender prisoners and are “expressly required” to consider the trans woman’s offending history, her anatomy and her sexual behaviours and relationships. The Lord Justice said:

“They can in my view be expected to be astute to detect any case of a male prisoner who, for sinister reasons, is merely pretending to wish to live in the female gender.”


He concluded:

“the policies require a careful, case-by-case assessment of the risks and of the ways in which the risks should be managed. Properly applied, that assessment has the result that non-transgender prisoners only have contact with transgender prisoners when it is safe for them to do so.”

This is the same case that noble Lords have been quoting from.

Yes, the Lord Justice said:

“I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence.”


He added that some women prisoners,

“may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender woman who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”

This amendment says nothing about whether the person has had sex-reassignment surgery, and there are trans women with gender recognition certificates who have not undergone gender reassignment surgery. The amendment, therefore, is not fit for purpose.

There are two sorts of risk that need to be managed here. There are the risks to the transgender prisoner, either from themselves, in terms of mental health, self-harm and suicide, or the risk from other prisoners, such as the risk of a transphobic attack or an attack based on their acquired gender if they present as a woman in a prison housing men, for example. There may be risks that the transgender person poses, perhaps because of a previous history of violence or sexual offences, but those falling into this category are few and far between and can be dealt with under the law as it stands. Any attempt to stereotype all transgender women as a threat to women flies in the face of the facts and needs to be robustly challenged.

The implication that transgender women are a threat to children reminds me of the sort of abuse that was directed towards me as a gay man a few decades ago.

--- Later in debate ---

I want hate crime legislation to be extended to misogyny. I very much hope the Equality and Human Rights Commission continues its pursuit of clarity and consistency, and I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I cannot see that conflating sex and gender, as in this amendment, goes in the right direction. We should wait to hear what the Law Commission advises.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly—the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will be pleased to know—to offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I shall simply make two points, one of which draws on the recent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

First, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, referred to the origins of this amendment. Nottinghamshire Police Force has been a pioneer in this area. In my contribution on this subject on the Domestic Abuse Bill, I looked back beyond that. If you look at the history of how Nottingham police came to be doing it, it began with a group called Nottingham Citizens and a survey it conducted among the people of Nottingham. That led to a conference held at the Nottingham Women’s Centre, which informed the police and police action. This is something that very much grew from the grass roots up. In response to many of the contributions from people advocating Amendment 219A instead: this has been proven to work. It is there demonstrably on the ground. The fact is there.

For my second point, I refer to the author Caroline Criado Perez and quote her:

“There is enough data to know that men who kill women do not suddenly kill women, they work up to killing women … If only we were to listen to women and pay attention to the misogyny and aggression and violence that they deal with on a daily basis.”


That is what Amendment 219 seeks to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests that we have to wait and wait and wait. I would suggest we have been waiting lifetimes—centuries—for this action. We have a proven model that has been shown to work. Let us put it into effect.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

From a woman’s point of view, I would just like to say that there are things I would have done at 20 that I absolutely would not do now, at 70. We can all learn and adapt our behaviour, so the past may not be relevant.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

As a woman, I say that the past might not be relevant but the truth might be, if you have just said, “I would never have done this” or “I have never done this”. I do not understand why the purpose of this amendment is to send a message; the point of the law is not just to send a message. Of course, we want women to get a fair shot at seeing people they are accusing of rape found guilty, but I do not want the state to be in a position where it can find people guilty based on the fact that you cannot probe the truth of what has been said. That is condescending to women, by the way. Women do not need to be so protected; they need people to do their jobs. But we do not need to alter the law to hide the truth in order to give women a fair shot.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer Green support for all these amendments. Some of my questions have just been answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and his suggestion that some of the amendments be combined is positive, because retaining the opportunity to take away the right to a vehicle in an offence involving a vehicle is very useful.

I am aware of the time and the pressure to make progress, but it is a great pity that we are discussing such an important group of amendments, all put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, so late at night and in this rather rushed way. I will just draw some comparisons and links between them.

One thing to highlight is how much these amendments come from community campaigning from the grass roots up. I imagine that the campaign for the offence of harassment draws, in large part, from the group called Our Streets Now, set up by sisters Gemma and Maya Tutton, aged 16 and 22, who are working with the charity Plan International UK. Their hashtag is #CrimeNotCompliment. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord might have drawn on their ready-made Bill and I note that this has had strong cross-party support in the other place. I draw on the words of the women’s rights campaigner Nimco Ali, who said it is “bizarre” that street sexual harassment is still legal. Littering and smoking are banned, but this kind of behaviour is not.

On Amendment 285, I briefly highlight that Generation Rent, another grass-roots campaign group, has been pushing for action here. A report by Shelter in January found that, between March and September 2020, around 30,000 women had been offered housing in exchange for sex. This is a function of the extreme dysfunction of our current housing system.

I have to address Amendment 292M personally because, as I suspect is the case for many people, particularly women, it is something I have personally experienced. I was 11 years old in another country, out in the centre of Sydney on my own, when I was subjected to this offence. I was taught, as lots of young girls were then and probably still are now, to laugh, turn around and walk away. But that I can still vividly remember that street scene shows that it had an impact on me. When I look back now, I felt as an 11 year-old that this was a threat to my right to be on the streets. I did not tell my mother, because I was worried that she would think I should not be allowed out on my own to exercise the freedom that I wanted and continued to exercise. It is crucial that we see a change in attitude here and a review is a good way to address that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has covered Amendment 292T very well, but we must note that Femicide Census, campaigning on this and broader issues, reports no sign of a reduction in the rate of femicide. That study covered a 10-year span from 2009 to 2018. We are not making progress on this, but we need to. I hope the Government will go away and look at this important group of amendments very seriously, and come back to us with proposals covering—I like to be an optimist—all of them.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, spiking is a serious matter and people who do it should be caught and punished, but I issue a note of caution, because I am slightly worried about Amendment 292R, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I am worried it might be too reactive and respond to the perception that this is a major problem, rather than a cool factual analysis. Calling for an urgent review could unintentionally fuel what might be a moral panic and create a climate of fear.

To give some context, despite the headlines and social media hysteria, some careful commentators and a range of experts have raised doubts, queried some of the sensationalist coverage and warned against overreacting. There was a useful article in Vice that started the debunking, which quoted Guy Jones, a senior scientist at the drugs charity The Loop, who pointed out that

“few drugs would be able to be injected like this”,

using a needle. Administering drugs in this way is just not an easy task. Some experts have explained that it would be particularly difficult to use date-rape drugs, because of the larger needle that would be needed and that it would need to be in the body for at least 20 seconds.

The director of the Global Drug Survey, Adam Winstock, notes:

“There are very few widely accessible drugs”


that could be used in this way and given intramuscularly in small enough volumes that people would not notice. A critical care nurse I saw interviewed suggested that the likelihood of administering drugs like ketamine was virtually zero. After a high-profile report about somebody being infected by HIV, the National AIDS Trust pointed out:

“Getting HIV from a needle injury is extremely rare. A diagnosis takes weeks.”


So it is worth pausing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am very much obliged to everybody who has taken part in this incredibly important debate. It is terribly unfortunate that this debate is happening at this particular time—I am very glad to see the Minister nodding. This is incredibly unfortunate when we are talking about violence against women and girls, which is the big issue in relation to this Bill. This is no attack on the Whips, but they asked prior to the dinner break that we get on as quickly as possible. It is an incredibly unfortunate way for this House to look at legislation such as this.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his support for Amendment 284, which concerns street harassment. I take note of what he said in relation to Amendment 285 and the difference between the penalties. He was suggesting that there might be a way to amalgamate the two. That suggestion seems to be very well made, and I hope that when we come back with this on Report, we might try to follow it up. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her support in relation to all of the amendments.

I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said in respect of the review on spiking. One is in a bit of a dilemma: there is already some degree of anxiety in relation to spiking. I think that what she was saying was, “Do not have an immediate review because that increases the anxiety,” but if you do nothing about it, the anxiety continues. My own judgment would be that one should have the review.

Separately, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked whether one should be worried if one is criminalising through harassment conduct including speech. I do not think that that criminalises free speech, because the sorts of speech that we would intend to criminalise under the harassment crime would be cajoling, offensive behaviour—not expressing an opinion but insulting people or demanding sex or other things of people in a wholly inappropriate way. I do not think that would give rise to the risk of an attack on free speech.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I suppose it is following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, about the broadness of that amendment. Since 2016, I have been subjected to a “fair amount of verbal”, as they say, walking around the Westminster village, from people who did not approve of my Brexit views. It was not pleasant: it was not sexual, but it was particularly obnoxious and offensive; but I do not know whether that should be against the law. I might have a moral view of it, but I would not want them all to be arrested. I am saying that, while verbal harassment is unpleasant, there is a question as to whether it should be made criminal. I just do not want everyone being locked up for things they say, even if what they say causes distress.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I completely take the noble Baroness’s point. The law has been very, very aware of that. There is a difference between people saying to you on the street, “I very much disagree with your views on Brexit” and others saying, “Why are you such a stupid, awful” and then a series of expletives, and chasing you down the street, just abusing you. The law is capable of making distinction.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It was the latter rather than the former, I have to say.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Then there might be a point where that becomes harassment.

I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, to be terrible. He sounded like a Government Minister in relation to this, thinking of excuses why not to do something about harassment, not just against women—against other people as well—but particularly against women. I was very struck by the fact that the Minister at least acknowledged that there is a real problem in relation to this. Her speech accepted that something had to be done about it, which that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, did not.

There was a difference between the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which was broadly to accept the proposals that I am making in Amendment 284, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who raised two particular points in relation to street harassment. One was about the breadth of the offence, which is not limited to sexual matters. I do not think it should be limited to sexual matters. If somebody who is disabled is chased down the street by a group of people taunting them for being disabled, that should be harassment. The second point the noble Lord was worrying about was “ought to know”. The sort of conduct that we are seeking to criminalise here is where people behave in a way that is wholly unacceptable. If you say, “I did not know that it was criminal to wolf-whistle and chase somebody down the street,” the fact that you did not know that should not be any defence. Those were the only two points he made in relation to it.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Coaker, I was a little surprised to find my amendment grouped with two very different amendments, both of which I am happy to support. If I were not such a collegiate person, I would probably have asked for my amendment to be degrouped and debated separately, but I suspect that the Government Front Bench and your Lordships would not have regarded that as a particularly friendly gesture at this time of night and at this late stage in the Bill.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment. He will recall that I was a very new Member of this House in 2000, and, having previously been involved in tackling football violence, I was very pleased to give him every possible support in the measure that he took. His description of the difference it made was absolutely correct.

My amendment is something completely different. It introduces an offence of receiving cash for scrap metal by amending Section 12 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 and would effectively close a loophole in that Act. Noble Lords with longer memories will recall that cash was removed as a means of payment with the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Its provisions created a criminal offence which prohibited all scrap metal dealers from paying for scrap metal in cash. This was reinforced in 2013, with the introduction of the SMDA—the Scrap Metal Dealers Act—and that was a significant step forward in tackling the scourge of metal crime, which was having a devastating effect on our national infrastructure, heritage, transport operators, public undertakings and communities across the country.

That legislation made it more difficult for criminals to convert stolen metal into cash and removed the opportunity for sections of the scrap metal industry to avoid taxation and launder money. Serious attention was paid to enforcement by the metal theft task force and Operation Tornado, led by the British Transport Police, and in the face of falling commodity prices, levels of offending fell and generally remained fairly low until about 2019. But then values of commodities increased significantly, and enforcement was switched to other priorities.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council metal crime lead is Assistant Chief Constable Charlie Doyle of the BTP. He requested a review of the 2013 SMDA to see how it could be improved to meet the new challenges that did not exist when the Act was written. He set up a group of representatives from all the sectors hit by metal theft and drew up a priority list for updating the legislation. The one suggestion that was universally supported was the introduction of an offence of receiving cash for stolen metal. The introduction of an offence of receiving cash would discourage those who would not normally be involved in any form of criminality, and make it more challenging for those who are.

I am afraid that metal crime is now on the rise again. It is being fuelled by ever increasing commodity prices: copper is at an all-time high, and the projections are that it will continue to rise over the coming years as demand increases. Catalytic converter theft has also emerged as a growing problem, with rhodium rising sixfold in value during the last couple of years. We know that cash continues to be used within sections of the industry and, because of reduced enforcement activity, its use has increased in line with these rises in commodity prices.

As with football violence, referred to by my noble friend Lord Bassam, the emergence of social media marketplaces and online platforms has given rise to an explosion of criminal activity linked to metal crime. A quick search on these platforms reveals page after page of adverts offering to purchase metal, catalytic converters and other items linked to metal crime for cash, with effectively no questions asked.

This amendment would allow a greater degree of leverage with the online platforms to have listings and accounts removed because they would be operating in contravention of the law. The money launderers would find it much more difficult to convert their cash into legitimate assets and it would add an additional layer of difficulty for those who continue to deal in cash.

The Minister, who I am pleased to see back in her place on the Front Bench, will recall that I raised the issue of metal theft in an Oral Question which she answered on 14 October. She was good enough to follow that up with a meeting on 9 November, also attended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who I am also delighted to see in his place. I thank him for signing my amendment this evening.

Last Thursday, I attended a demonstration in Worcestershire, by the West Mercia Police, of a number of sophisticated initiatives to track stolen items as varied as farm trailers, four-wheel drive tractors and bicycles. I discussed this amendment with the new chief constable, Pippa Mills, who wishes me to tell your Lordships that she supports a change in legislation that acts as a further deterrent to metal thieves or dealers in stolen metal and enables the prosecution of those involved in metal theft.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, despite being an anti-racist—

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

I have not quite finished.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do apologise.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

In view of the very positive nature of the Minister’s comments at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, I hope her noble friend can give some hope that the law will be changed in line with the terms of my amendment.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. He and I sit together on the APPG. This is a highly organised crime committed by gangs and it has a devastating impact not only on our national infrastructure but on many—primarily rural—communities. In the year to March 2020, 36,000 metal thefts were recorded by the police. Just last week the Countryside Alliance, as a result of FoI requests from police forces, identified that 1,500 lead and metal thefts since 2017 were from churches. Theft of lead from church roofs can have a devastating impact on local communities. I have had direct experience of that, which is why I joined the noble Lord’s group.

As the noble Lord said, adverts offering “cash for scrap” are now widespread. The 2013 Act made it illegal to pay cash for scrap metal but not to receive it. This amendment closes that glaring loophole. I very much hope that the Government will support it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise for taking the instruction to hurry up rather too literally.

Despite being an anti-racist and a football fan, I have serious free speech concerns about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Balsam—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

It is Bassam, actually.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am making too many mistakes and I am sorry. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested, online abuse will be thoroughly debated in the online safety Bill, when I will lay out my concerns and listen to further discussion on this.

For now, I want to focus on Amendment 292Q, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I am rather concerned about. Civil libertarians have warned us recently about public space protection orders increasingly being used to carve out more and more public space away from the public, effectively privatising it and excluding citizens from the public square. Therefore, I am concerned about an amendment that tries to fast-track these very orders. I was struck by the explanatory statement from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that the amendment is aimed at anti-vaccination protestors who target schools, pupils and teachers.

I, too, worry about hardcore anti-vax sentiment in society. However, in the interests of accuracy and not to allow misinformation to flourish, some protests at schools have comprised fully vaccinated parents who were specifically worried about the use of the Covid vaccine on children, a sentiment echoed by some in the JCVI at least. It would be wrong to characterise these protests as anti-vaxxers per se. Also, while the amendment was discussed in relation to anti-vaxxers, it could be used against any protest. Would other protests be targeted by the amendment?

I am rather worried about education authorities having to make politically contentious decisions about who is allowed at the school gates. I am thinking of the instances in the build-up to COP 26 when there was a lot of leafleting of schoolchildren by environmental activists advocating eco school strikes. Personally, I have qualms about encouraging political truancy but, none the less, I support their right to leaflet, and I know that many young people appreciated talking to those campaigners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, if I may, I will speak succinctly on the noise amendments. I appreciated what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about the two-way street, favourite protests and standing up for all protests, but I wonder about the extent to which we are actually doing that. I listened carefully to the persuasive argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in introducing the Opposition amendment on fast-track orders for schools. I also listened to the excellent opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; if that is the kind of protest which is being restricted, I am sure that a majority in both Houses would vote against it. Opposition Members have spoken in favour of protections around schools, and I can very much see the case for protecting schools. But are we really saying that untrammelled noise cannot be intimidating and unacceptable, in the manner which the Bill attempts to frame as a problem?

Anti-vaxxers outside schools were given as an example. Are we saying that noise should not be a factor if anti-vaxxers are making a sustained attempt to disrupt Covid vaccine clinics? Another entirely feasible example is a far-right protest that was seeking to intimidate council workers using high levels of noise, because the council was volunteering to bring in refugees and a section of that community did not want that.

The question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was pertinent: is existing legislation sufficient to deal with this? I hope that Ministers will address that point when summing up and in bringing the Bill to Report. I am much less comfortable with the rhetoric which simply cites noise as beyond the bounds of regulation in a legal framework. We all know that many protests are noisy—I would imagine that the majority of us in this Chamber have been on such protests—and that is a good thing. But it is surely not what this legislation is intended to debar.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support those who oppose the clauses in Part 3 standing part of the Bill, but I will support each and all of the specific amendments that aim to mitigate the most egregious harm to liberty that Part 3 represents. The comments by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Beith, and the personal remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, sum up many of my concerns.

I do not agree at all with the sinister reading of the Government’s motives from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but I am genuinely utterly baffled as to what the Government intend this part of the Bill to achieve. We are consistently told, I think in good faith, that Part 3 does not threaten the right to protest, but whether that is disingenuous, naive or whatever, it is just not true: it does threaten the right to protest. This part of the Bill weighs the balance of power heavily towards the authorities and will make it harder for members of the public to demonstrate their views and have their concerns heard. It explicitly aims to restrict protest in an ever-wider range of circumstances and, more insidiously, by threats of criminalising, eye-watering fines and imprisonment for an ever-expanding number of types of protesters. That will have a chilling effect.

How would the Government advocate that citizens stand up to the state to make their voices loudly heard or hold the Government to account beyond the ballot box within the prescriptive clauses of Part 3? Surely, this Government have championed popular sovereignty in relation to Brexit, for example. Surely, they will not then be frightened of a lively culture of politically engaged citizens who, on occasion, might have noisy, boisterous protests and demonstrations to effect change.

Having said all this, I am aware that many members of the public—many millions, probably—have become frustrated by some of the recent protests we have seen in the UK. They want the police to deal firmly with these new kinds of protests, which seem less about democratic rights and more about using tactics against the public, almost with the aim of disrupting ordinary people’s lives until they relent and accept their net-zero aims without the bother of winning over the majority by argument. So, I get that the Government and the headlines pose Part 3 as tackling these new-style, seemingly anti-democratic, not anti-power but anti-public protesters.

However, it just is not true that the original Part 3, without the new amendments that are to be added, did not have any elements that would tackle those new types of protests. As I said at Second Reading, laws already exist that are just not being enforced by the police consistently. At the judicial review of the Extinction Rebellion protests across London, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police conceded that she was satisfied that the power in the Public Order Act 1986 was sufficient to allow the police legally to deal with protests that, even in design, attempt to stretch policing to its limits. I suspect that those Insulate Britain protesters in prison now might think that the law is pretty sufficient. Indeed, when Sajid Javid was Home Secretary he admitted that

“where a crime is committed”

during a protest,

“the police have the powers to act”,

and that significant legislation

“already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/18; cols. 37-38WS.]

As Garden Court Chambers notes:

“The suggested ‘gaps in the law’ simply do not exist … These additional powers are designed to make it prohibitively difficult for the public to exercise its right to protest at all”.


As it happens, it seems that the Home Secretary possibly agrees with me—I do not imagine she was influenced by me—that the original Part 3 does not make a blind bit of difference to policing Extinction Rebellion-style protests. That is presumably why Priti Patel announced at the 2021 Conservative Party conference a whole swathe of new amendments specifically to deal with new protest tactics. I might not agree with those new amendments, but at least I understand the logic of creating new offences to deal with things such as the act of “locking on”, which is a new form of protest, or to tackle all those people gluing themselves to highways and so on. But the rest of Part 3 makes little sense if it is the case that the Government are addressing public concern over the new-style protests.

There is loads that I want to say on the detail, but I will not do that. I want to make a couple of points on noise, although a lot has been said. I cannot believe that we in this House have been reduced to looking at what is too noisy. The police have been given such expansive and draconian powers to impose conditions on protests based on interpreting how much noise may have a significant impact, and so on, that I have spent quite a long time researching decibels and statutory noise nuisance laws and much more. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to give them any fascinating detail on any of that in this speech. But as I was researching it, I thought, “Oh my goodness, all these police officers who are charged with making judgments on what’s too noisy won’t have my research at their fingertips—rather, they’ll have a nebulous, vague and subjective idea that they’ve got to make a judgment about what noise might be causing unease”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief and not repeat the valid and chilling points that have already been made. I just say this: for me to even attempt a line-by-line examination of this whole suite of new amendments would result in not just the Leader coming in to censor me again, but me probably being arrested. I am not going to do that, but I will try to say two things that noble Lords have not said yet.

On locking on and in particular going equipped for locking on, and stop and search with or without suspicion of locking on, I am worried not about the glue referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but about people with bicycle locks. I am worried about young people going about their business, sometimes riding to a demonstration or being in the vicinity of potential demonstrations, carrying bicycle locks. I cannot see how they are not potentially in jeopardy, en masse, of both the stop and search powers, and going equipped.

Secondly, as a former Home Office lawyer and a director of Liberty, to me, this suite of measures, which could be a Bill in itself, looks, smells and tastes a lot like anti-terror legislation of the kind that I have always opposed as being disproportionate and counterproductive. Whether it is the new orders, the stop and search powers, including suspicion, or offences including thought crimes, this new Bill within a Bill looks like some of the anti-terror powers that, when they were introduced, noble Lords opposite and elsewhere, and I and some of my noble friends—forgive me, I hope—looked the other way. Those powers have inspired what we see here, but this time they are not for terrorists but protesters.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister gave a powerful justification for upgrading and updating the criminal law to deal with these new forms of protest. She made the point that the general public have had enough, and we recognise that. We have all seen instances of workers begging protesters to let them through to go to work, parents trying to get ill children to hospitals and so on. We have seen frustration turn to fury and people often taking action on their own, dragging protesters away as the police have stood by. At least this section of the Bill makes sense to me based on that motivation, but we have spent hours and hours on previous sections on banning the types of protest in Part 3, which was justified on the basis that it was dealing with those kinds of actions, when in fact none of the measures that we previously discussed would deal with them at all.

The measures that we previously discussed in Part 3 elicited some very fine speeches about the right to protest. I was struck most recently by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I related to. We were probably on the same miners’ demos. It properly and entirely understood why people were demanding the right to protest. All those fine words were effectively shot down by the Minister on the basis that these are things that we need to do to deal with Extinction Rebellion and these different kinds of protest. In fact, the only dealings that I had when I got caught up in an Extinction Rebellion protest—I mean that I was trying to get through it, rather than that I was on it, in case anyone panics—was when they were doing a five-hour silent vigil in mime. There was no noise involved. But we have spent all that time discussing how noise is going to trigger the police having a huge amount of power to deal with those people.

I find it utterly galling, because now we have a set of amendments, and at least I can understand why the Government have brought them in—and the public will think that they will tackle what they are furious about—and we should therefore, in this House, be able to scrutinise them line by line, as has been explained. People will probably like the locking-on offence—I say “people”, meaning that there might be popular support for it. But the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, have done a really good take-down of what the consequences of these measures would be beyond the headlines, and people might be less keen on the equipped to lock-on offence. Certainly, when they work out the frightening aspects of the serious disruption prevention orders, they might want to think again. The “causing and contributing to” aspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted, really is a very serious threat to free speech—absolutely. And this is a Government who claim all the time that they are here to defend free speech, but they are introducing, without even casually noting it, something that would absolutely have a damaging effect on free speech.

Maybe I am wrong, and maybe the Government could persuade us that these special kinds of protests need special laws, in which case we should have hours and hours to discuss it. Instead, here we are, fed up, having discussed a whole range of other legislation that was supposed to deal with these issues when in fact, it did not; and now, the things which might deal with those issues we do not have time to discuss. It is frustrating for all of us.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

When Boris Johnson was Mayor of London, he brought in a rule about not drinking on the tube, which was a solution in search of a problem—because it was not a problem at the time. But it immediately made me want to run out, buy a bottle of gin and go drinking on the tube, because it was such a stupid rule. This provision is a little bit like that: I do not really want to carry a tube of superglue around, but I have on many occasions carried a bike lock. It is absolutely ludicrous.

When the Minister read out the list of amendments, my heart sank. Although I had looked at them all individually, somehow hearing them one after the other made me feel that this is totally wrong. If the Government do not withdraw all these amendments, we should vote against the Bill in its entirety.

The Minister talked about protestors, referring to the issue of whatever their cause may be. But the HS2 protestors, of whom I consider myself one, have actually been trying to save precious things for the nation. It is not fun to be out on a picket line, being shoved around by security guards and hassled by the police constantly. I was standing next to one man on a picket line who said, “I retired last year and I thought I would be birdwatching, but here I am holding a placard”. Those are the sorts of people who have been protesting about HS2; they have been trying to save precious eco-systems for the nation, for all of us, and to prevent the chopping down of ancient woodlands. We really cannot dismiss these people as troublemakers, deserving of all these amendments. I admire the attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to improve these measures, but it is a hopeless case.

The Government are very quick to talk about the views of the public and what the public want, perhaps from a few clips on TV and a few emails, but on the sewage amendment to the Environment Bill, they had thousands and thousands of emails, but they absolutely ignored them and carried on allowing sewage to be pumped into our rivers and on to our coastline. So please do not tell me that the public want this. The public did not want sewage, but the Government ignored that. The Government pick and choose to suit themselves what they design legislation around.

As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, mentioned, there is also the late tabling of these amendments. It is a democratic outrage. They are of such legal significance and such a threat to people’s human rights that they should be the subject of a whole Bill, with public discussion about it, public consultation, human rights declarations and equalities impact assessments. Every MP should be furious that they have been bypassed, because the only scrutiny they will get is, if they are lucky, a quick 20 minutes during ping-pong to find out what they are all about. Because they are whipped, they will probably not pay any attention to it anyway. This is nothing more than a naked attack on civil liberties and a crackdown on protest, and we must oppose it for both what it is and how it is being done.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I cannot speak as eloquently as the speakers we have just heard, but I want to say that this feels so much like law made by press release, and law made to virtue-signal, that I feel incredibly uncomfortable about it.

We want to say to emergency workers that we will protect them if they are at risk, but we know that the emergency worker in this instance, PC Harper, was not the target of the crime; it was not intentional to kill an emergency worker. So I do not see even how this operates as a deterrent, because it is not aimed at people who have put those emergency workers at risk, even though those workers have accidentally been killed in the pursuit of a criminal act that is, I accept, dangerous.

There is an exception, which is that the trial judge can make an alternative sentence in “exceptional circumstances”. But, as has been pointed out, the trial judge can already make an alternative sentence—a full life sentence in some circumstances—so why emphasise it, unless it is a political policy statement? It is not a matter of law; it is a question of saying, “We will be hard”, and it will inevitably lead to great injustice. The fact that 16 and 17 year-olds have been included means that very young people could now have mandatory life sentences for manslaughter, with no discretion, and no discretion encouraged. It is so wrong and brought in for all the wrong reasons.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I share many of the reservations expressed already and the analysis given on both the provision and the circumstances which have led to it. I ask the Minister, in his response to the debate, to deal with one of the points raised by the noble Viscount, which is the discretion that might be available to the judge in deciding what tariff accompanies the sentence, as opposed to the provisions of proposed new subsection (2), which give slightly more power—I refrain from defining it as a wider power—in exceptional circumstances to the judge to impose a different sentence altogether.

One thing the Minister did not cover in his helpful introduction was the extent to which the tariff provisions interact with this. I would be grateful if he could explain that, in case he can give us any reassurance about what seems to be the danger of making general law out of a particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the joys of the IPP debate are ahead of us. That raises very different points. The IPP sentence has different characteristics and the problems that it has given rise to are entirely different. I listened very carefully to the debate in Committee on IPPs, when a number of noble and noble and learned Lords expressed disquiet and tabled various amendments. They will know that I have had conversations with them about it. So I am entirely alive to the IPP issue, but that is completely separate from this issue. We consider that this measure is an appropriate response to this form of offending.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The Minister listened very carefully to the debate in Committee on IPP. Some of us have read that and thought about it a lot since then. The problem is that noble Lords have not had the opportunity to listen very carefully to the debate on this particular amendment: that is the problem, in a way. It is not a straightforward amendment. I learned of it by hearing about it via the media and thought it could not possibly be being brought forward in relation to this Bill; I actually explained to people that they did not understand the way in which legislation was made, and that that was just something that the media said. Then, I realised that it was happening.

The Minister was very good and answered some of my queries and made sure that I did not fight any straw men when I went to him with particular arguments. He was very considerate in answering them. However, I do not think that the House has had the chance to consider this amendment. It is not without parallel to the IPP, inasmuch as it is a controversial sentencing change that has very big implications. We know that, because in the press release and the media reports, it was said that this would change everything. That is how it was announced: it was proclaimed as something that would change everything. Therefore, if it is going to change everything, people in this House should have a chance to debate it more thoroughly than now, so it is reasonable to ask if it could be brought forward later on in the Bill in order for some consideration to be given.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I do not know which of the no-doubt multifarious press releases the noble Baroness read, but it was clear in the ones that I saw that the matter was going to be brought back here. This amendment was, I understand, tabled on 1 December, so the issue has been live. I am very happy to take any further interventions. That was probably not a good idea.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

The Government are keen always to point to previous legislative precedence. When we asked judicial commissioners to give prior approval in cases where informants are being authorised by the police to commit criminal offences and are made exempt from prosecution, we were told that this was being done by the police handlers of those informants, who best knew the individuals and the scenarios in which they were to be deployed. The Government argued that local professionals on the ground should not be second-guessed by judicial commissioners. Here we are, with operational partners being second-guessed by the Home Secretary. Not only is this unacceptable but it is hypocritical for the Government to apply the principle in one situation—that professionals on the ground know best—and then reject it in another, and for the Government to argue that patients must not lose trust in their doctors but that those working to turn offenders away from serious violence can lose the trust of those they work with. I intend to seek the opinion of the House to leave out Clause 17.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am not particularly keen on GDPR legislation as it is, so I do not want to use it to support this group of amendments. I have also been happy to consider extraordinary measures to tackle things such as knife crime and gangs, because I do not want to pretend that this is a new problem. I live in Wood Green and I have seen someone stabbed. There is a horrible atmosphere in which you fear for young people’s lives. Instead, I want to raise my fear that this could have unintended consequences. It is a question of trust. The young people who we would all like to prevent from being involved in serious violence need to turn to someone and build up relationships with people, if they are to get out of situations where they could be involved in violence.

I will give a couple of examples from youth workers who I have spoken to. A young woman who is pregnant wants to extricate herself from the gang culture, but she worries that, if she talks to people such as youth workers, she will be accused of snitching on the father of her unborn child. That might lead them to the police’s arms, and so on. You can understand the situation. The youth worker reassures them that this will not occur but, actually, you cannot reassure them if the law changes as described. Then there is the young man who considers getting or tries to get himself out of a situation in which he is involved in gangs, but he is paranoid about the police. It is understandable that certain groups would think that any approach to anyone in authority would lead them into the police’s clutches. Actually, any attempt by a youth worker to reassure them that they should not be paranoid would be incorrect in this instance—they were right to be paranoid, because they are potentially putting themselves in the police’s clutches.

I ask the Minister how we can avoid the unintended consequences of this. I know that those individual youth workers will not necessarily be affected, but they work for institutions that have to make data available. Those anecdotes will become data points and important information can therefore be shared when it should not be. I note that I have told those stories anonymously and that I was given that information without any personal data being passed on. If you want to develop new strategies to tackle serious violence, it can be done without handing names, addresses and personal details to the police.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will endeavour to be brief. This group of amendments includes government concessions to include extra protections on doctor-patient confidentiality and healthcare data. They provide that the powers under the serious violence reduction duty do not authorise the disclosure of patient or personal information by a health or social care authority. We support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which, among other things, leave out the uncertain language in brackets in the Bill.

To be a bit clearer about it—although the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, explained it extremely well, as one would expect—the serious violence reduction duty requires data sharing between bodies, and the Bill currently provides that data cannot be shared if it would breach data protection laws. It qualifies that with:

“(but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, any power conferred by the regulations is to be taken into account)”.

An amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others would delete the provision in brackets, so data protection law would apply as normal, as it does to medical professionals. A number of noble Lords have referred to other people or organisations who have contact and involvement with that same degree of confidentiality, and professional judgments on disclosure should apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to a meeting she had with the Minister and a letter she only very recently received. I assume that is the one dated 7 December. I appreciate the letter and thank the Minister for it but, reading the paragraph that relates to the bit in brackets that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, seeks to delete, I struggle to understand the argument for having the part in brackets. Why is it necessary?

Why can we not simply leave it, with statements in other parts of the letter that make it clear that data can be shared, where it is lawful to do so, only under the data protection legislation? One would have thought that is surely all we needed to say—not to have something in brackets which I do not fully understand the need for, despite the letter from the Minister. I sense from what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is saying that she too struggles to understand why we need the bit in brackets at all. I have no doubt that the Minister will comment on that in her response.

Having said that, we welcome the concessions made by the Government on medical data and doctor-patient confidentiality. They show that the Government have accepted, up to a point, that the data-sharing powers in this chapter needed qualification. Data sharing, properly and intelligently done, with safeguards, can be absolutely key to tackling serious violence, to prevent silo working and some of the failures we have witnessed too many times. We have some concerns over the proposal to require all data shared under the duty to be anonymised, as there may be rare but crucial cases where information needs to be more specific to protect the vulnerable and pursue the criminal.

I come back to this point: in welcoming the concessions that have been made, we support what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is seeking to achieve, but we find the language in brackets—to which reference has been made—which appears to qualify the application of data protection law, to be unclear, and we really do not see why those words need to be there at all.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly support what my noble friend Lord Pannick has just said. It is a great mistake, certainly at this stage in our affairs, to attempt to legislate in this matter. It may be that the prison estate will be big enough in years to come so that one can segregate by gender reassignment in special prisons of their own, but we are nowhere near that at the moment and the proper way to deal with this is to rely on the discretion that exists at present.

It is quite striking if you look at the wording of the amendment—it makes no distinction between whether we are talking about male or female prisoners, but very different situations arise depending on which of these two characteristics you are considering. It makes no distinction for the time that the person may have lived in that new assignment. It makes no distinction, either, for the extent of the surgery and the appearance of the person over time as the reassignment process takes place.

It is very difficult for those of us who, I assume, have not faced this to appreciate the intense emotional problem that people who believe that they have been born into the wrong sex undergo. It is a very emotional matter, fighting against characteristics you have acquired that you do not believe belong to you. The way you deal with it is to believe that you are actually of the sex—of the gender, I should say—that you think you should have been. That involves not only reconstruction of the body but a mentality designed entirely to live the new life, which you believe is the one you should have been given. It strikes me as very cruel, if I may use that expression, to treat these people as if they had not reassigned themselves. It is not a choice. They are driven by the characteristics they acquired which forced them into their decision.

I make these points just to emphasise that we are dealing here with a very difficult problem. The offender requires as much consideration on the grounds of safety and emotional distress as the people around them in the prison in which they are placed. Legislation is not the way to go, certainly not at the moment. I personally have complete confidence in the way that the prison authorities are dealing with this very difficult problem at the moment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in particular, for doggedly sticking with this issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for organising the MoJ teach-in, which I found very interesting and useful. I learned a lot and I listened hard.

I thought this amendment was a nuanced and sensitive way of dealing with all the objections raised by the MoJ at that teach-in, so I am rather disappointed that the Government have not accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which is a bespoke amendment that protects women’s single-sex spaces while sympathetically and practically managing any challenges faced by transwomen prisoners.

The amendment might be a modest proposal—I think it is—but noble Lords may be interested to hear that it has created a huge amount of interest outside this place over the last couple of days. People on Twitter might look at #KeepPrisonsSingleSex. It has been trending for the last 36 hours. Do look because the messages on there are what I am talking about, rather than the fact that it is trending.

I want to read a few tweets that could maybe help us understand why this amendment matters. One woman said:

“I find it quite baffling that this is even up for discussion! How did we get to the point where we need a debate to include legislation to prevent something so damaging to women?”


Another said:

“Women in UK prisons must not be locked in with convicted male criminals. This is an appalling failure of the duty of care the state has for female prisoners. Female prison staff must not be forced to search male prisoners. Let’s hope the House of Lords shows sense.”


I would like to think the House of Lords would as well, but maybe not. The final one I want to read out says:

“I’ve been to prison and I’m telling you now that for some women it’s their only safe space, due to abuse on the outside. Allowing anyone who claims to feel like a woman to be put in that safe space is wrong! Women, criminal or not deserve to feel safe.”


I say hear, hear to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register. I find myself somewhat perplexed by this debate and the amendment. My noble friend Lady Meyer said that we were talking only about men who had not transitioned—but I do not think that the amendment says that. It is clear in referring to

“a person who has undergone gender reassignment”.

So there appears to be some misunderstanding about what the effect of the amendment would be, and I wonder what the problem is that we are trying to fix. After all, my noble friend Lord Blencathra himself said that the number of transgender women in the women-only estate was “very small”.

We know that in practice the vast majority of transgender prisoners are already held in prisons which match their sex registered at birth. The small number who are not held in such places have been risk-assessed. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, that risk assessment would count for nothing in relation to transgender women because the effect of this amendment would be to say that there are no circumstances, irrespective of risk, in which such women, who may have been women for some time, may be held in the women-only estate.

It does not matter that the authorities believe that they pose no risk whatever. It does not matter that the numbers that we are talking about are actually very low. What matters to those who tabled this amendment is that the law should say that they should never be held in such a wing. That is in principle wrong.

It seems to be the sense of the whole House that people should be held according to the appropriate accommodation after a risk assessment. That might well mean that trans women are not held in the women-only estate. It might well mean that trans men are not held in the male-only estate, but that it is better that there is a risk assessment and they are held in the appropriate place.

The effect of this amendment is to prescribe, because those who tabled it think they know better. That, in the end, is the decision that we are confronted with. It is a decision about whether we are to be guided by ideology or pragmatism and, I would suggest, compassion.

It was said in advancing this amendment that a reason to accept it is that, absent it being passed, no places could be safe for women, not just in prison, but beyond the prison estate. How can that be? How could this amendment, were we to pass it, suddenly make all other places for women safe? It was also said—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I wanted to clarify whether, if the proposal has an impact on prisons, what impact it might have on all women. What is at issue is the protection of single-sex facilities—places that are only single sex. That is a very important principle—no matter how small the numbers are in this instance—about which there is concern. I am clarifying why people say that, and not just in this House—this is a widespread concern.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think we can agree that it is important that women should be safe. The Equality Act provides exemptions in a number of scenarios, including in relation to women-only spaces outside the prison estate to ensure that. It allows the prison authorities to make the right judgments about where it is appropriate to place people. The safety of people is put first, and so it should be.

It has been suggested that a reason to pass this amendment is because of the media coverage that this debate has excited, and that outside this place there is a tremendous wave of anger we need to pay attention to. Of course, if people’s fears are provoked and if media campaigns suggest that women cannot be safe, there will be such fervent outrage, but that is not a reason for us to depart from the facts. The facts do not lend support to this approach, which places ideology above pragmatism. I therefore urge the Government not to accept this amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? A few years ago, when I was a police and crime commissioner, it came across our desk a lot that it was government policy to have a royal commission on the criminal justice system. What has happened to that proposal? Is it still there? Is it still the Government’s hope to do that? If it was, I would be very much in support of it. If it is not, I very much support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has moved.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have thought long and hard about this amendment, and I am still torn about it. The other evening, in that rather fractious discussion about trans prisoners in women’s prisons, the Minister rather took me up on my quotes from Twitter, as though I was using Twitter as hardcore evidence, which I was not. He made a valuable point, because he said that putting management and protection first was what was done, rather than following public opinion or what was on Twitter or anywhere else. I have some regard for that. In fact, I had made the same point to the Minister in relation to Harper’s law at the beginning of this Report stage, when I said that sentencing should not be a consequence of an outraged public reaction to something, a campaign or what have you. I would rather feel that sentencing was decided in the cold light of day, much more rationally, and so on. I worry about knee-jerk legislation.

I suppose I want to ask a couple of questions, of both the Minister and the mover of the amendment. Sentencing often seems subject to caricature on both sides. People are caricatured as bleeding-heart liberals who want everybody to be let out of prison, and anyone who is concerned about increasing sentencing is caricatured as “lock them up and throw away the key”. It seems to me that there needs to be some relationship between sentencing and the public and their views about it, but we do not want it to be arbitrary and reactive.

So, in that sense, I was very positive about the notion of a royal commission that could look at this in the round, take it away from the political world in some ways and allow, if you want, a more rational and considered public debate, as well as a commission looking at it in detail. That seemed to me to be a way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I know that some may be shocked. I actually worry a lot about prison reform, authoritarian tendencies and prison being used as an answer to all problems. There are a lot of draconian aspects of the Bill—the threat of jail for protesters, for example, which we are about to discuss—and all these things concern me.

However, I would not want a royal commission to be there to endorse what I or the movers of the amendment want. Therefore, a long list of things that are wrong with long sentences does not seem to be the basis of a royal commission—I would want it to look at sentencing without prejudice and bearing in mind public concerns about safety. It is absolutely the case that, despite my liberal qualms, there are times when people should probably be locked up for longer—but the prisons should then be reformed to make them more humane while you are in them for longer.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Well, my Lords, I had never really thought of the noble Baroness as a bleeding-heart liberal, but we all come in different guises, depending upon the subject. I find myself very taken by many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and by many others who have long been learned in the law.

I spoke to my noble friend the Minister after what the noble Baroness referred to as the slightly fractious debate on Monday. Funnily enough, I said to him that I thought that a royal commission would be a good way—better than an amendment to a Bill—to look at the issue that we were discussing: women in prison. Of course, this provision in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, could be incorporated.

On balance, I would favour a royal commission on the criminal justice system. I do not suppose that the noble Lord would be particularly opposed to that, rather than the specific amendment that he is moving today. But we need to look at these things because—coming back to a point made on Monday and today—we are failing in our criminal justice system because there is far too much recidivism and far too many lives are not amended and rehabilitated but further broken and eroded by spending time in prison. We have not got the balance right.

I have always been opposed to the simplistic view sometimes expressed, not by bleeding-heart liberals like the noble Baroness but by some on my own side: “Lock them up and keep them in.” That is no way to tackle things. So, although I would understand if, in responding to this debate, my noble friend the Minister said that he could not accept this amendment, I nevertheless strongly appeal to him on the Floor of the House, as I have privately, to consider very carefully the merits of a royal commission on the criminal justice system.

It can do no harm. We all remember Harold Wilson on royal commissions—they sit for years and take minutes—but that is not necessarily what royal commissions do. They can be given a timeframe or asked to report back within a certain period. If, by chance, my noble friend is not able to give the positive response I hope he might, we have many in your Lordships’ House who are indeed learned in the law, and this might be an ideal subject for one of the special committees that we set up each year in your Lordships’ House. It would have perhaps the most distinguished membership of any such committee ever established and I am sure it could make a powerful report, but I would still favour the royal commission approach. I hope that when my noble friend comes to respond, he will be able to give us some encouragement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for many years in this House —sadly, on opposite sides of it—but I have never heard him make a stronger argument for anything. The only reason why I cannot say that I will support him is because I have not written a little note to my noble friend the Chief Whip.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I cannot say that I know many teenagers who, growing up, aspire to be police crime and commissioners. However, I was convinced by the arguments made in Committee and I wanted to just make a couple of additional small points. For me it is not just about unfairness; there is a principle here. If you work with teenagers and one of them has made a mistake and has been fined or has broken the law in some way, you say to them, “Now we want you to rehabilitate and become a fine upstanding citizen”, and, “The world is your oyster and you can do anything.” I cannot imagine anything that is more proof of being fine and upstanding than growing up and then saying, “I want to be a police and crime commissioner.” I do not even know whether I agree with the idea of police and crime commissioners, but that is not my point.

The other thing, on a kind of principle, is that increasingly I would like public servants and people taking on roles such as police and crime commissioners to have some real-life experience—and that might involve youthful indiscretions.

I completely support the amendment. There are principles here that could easily be upheld by the Government simply accepting it; it makes perfect sense. I think even the public would cheer.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, since I have been gratuitously referred to, I ought to say some words. Archbishop Robert Runcie said, “A saint is a person whose life has never been fully examined.” All our lives have never been fully examined, but I confirm that I never committed any crime at the age of 15 or 16, and have not done even now. Even if I committed one, I am already excluded from becoming an archbishop again because I am now 72. Age would discriminate against me and push me out.

What I do not get is why being a police commissioner is the only calling where there is discrimination if something was done at the age of 16. I would have thought that, 40 years on, the person has done their time. Yes, there is a record but it does not have to be the only thing over which you exclude them, because they have come on in age. In wanting to remove this for police commissioners, we are not sending out a message that it does not matter whether you commit a crime at the age of 16. We are saying: why is there this hindrance to this profession? Because one day I may become a saint and my life will never be fully examined, I want to vote for this amendment. I hope that the Minister will just accept it and it will be put into statute without more debates, because this just does not make sense. But I speak like a fool.

--- Later in debate ---

It is a sensible amendment; it is a sensible way forward. There is no point of difference between the Government and us, except on the requirement for the legislation to allow immediate implementation rather than a delay caused by a consultation period. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as has already been noted, I raised concerns about an earlier version of this amendment in Committee, when I argued that, ultimately, it felt like it was legitimising a climate of demonising protests based on a subjective assessment of whether those protests were politically approved of or not.

Specifically, this new amendment relates to attitudes to Covid vaccines, which I want to look at. To put it beyond any doubt, I support the use of vaccines, although not vaccine passports or mandated vaccines—I say that too—but I do not believe that those who are opposed to vaccines, whether they are tennis players, NHS anaesthetists, fearful pregnant women or even conspiratorial cranks, should be criminalised or discriminated against because of their views, and I am concerned that aspects of that would happen from this amendment.

This new amendment would expand the use of the proposed fast-track public space protection orders beyond activities outside schools to venues providing NHS vaccination services to the public. We all have in mind those scenes—they have already been described—of vaccination centres being invaded, with equipment trashed and abuse shouted and so on. As it happens, like everyone else, I condemn that activity. However, if, as the amendment notes, such activities involve harassment, intimidation or impeding members of the public accessing a service that they want to access or impeding the staff or volunteers providing that service, surely we have laws on the statute book to deal with this, and those laws should be applied.

My question really is: why do we need to use PSPOs, and why are they proposed for non-specified activities outside schools, which could obviously be used, for example, to prohibit anything from leafleting to collecting names on a petition for any cause? In relation to the schools part of the amendment, anti-vaccine issues are not mentioned. I confess that I have long been an opponent of PSPOs. Sadly, I feel, they are used as arbitrary powers, issued by councils acting as though they run fiefdoms. I have written about the issue regularly in council publications such as the Municipal Journal since 2014 when they were brought in.

PSPOs do not ban any particular activities, which is why they are so broadly interpreted, often depending on the pet hates of local councils. Their name is something of a misnomer because, rather than protecting the public, they are used mainly to eject the public from public space, effectively privatising public space. Indeed, they are regularly used as dispersal orders for, for example, groups of individuals “hanging around”, often young people, or for political vigils or leafleters. Often, they are dispersed by authorised private security guards with the power to issue on-the-spot fines—one has to consider who would police the PSPOs in this amendment.

No wonder the civil liberties group the Manifesto Club has warned that PSPOs fundamentally undermine rights of free association and free expression in the public square. Indeed, in 2017, the Home Office recognised the overuse and overreach of PSPO powers and produced amended statutory guidance—but to no discernible effect as they are now being issued at an increased, and rising, rate.

The fast-track PSPOs proposed in this amendment have conditions, but those conditions simply use the phraseology usually associated with the orders in terms of activities that various individuals consider have

“a detrimental effect on the quality of life for pupils and staff”,

or whoever is being discussed. The phrase “detrimental effect on the quality of life” has been critiqued by many opponents of PSPOs as very vague and elastic. It has led councils in recent years to use PSPOs to restrict everything from cycling, charity collecting, rough sleeping, walking dogs without leads, begging and busking. A couple of dozen councils have used that phrase and PSPOs to ban—two of my favourites—swearing and loitering. I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever dropped their kids off at the school gates, but loitering in groups—often involving a little swearing, I confess—is almost a compulsory activity for parents.

More seriously, as the Manifesto Club has regularly noted, the test of “detrimental effect” is an unprecedentedly low legal test for criminal intervention, but there is also no requirement to show any substantial evidence of such detrimental effect. There is no proper democratic oversight locally, with no requirement for PSPOs to be passed through internal scrutiny procedures within a council.

Normally there is a requirement for consultation, but, as has been explained, this amendment would dispense with that. The consultations are usually fairly procedural, and many PSPOs have been passed with as few as 10 respondents. Anyway, in this instance we would remove even the formal need for consultation. Therefore, the PSPO would be issued. It would be signed off, as we have been told, by three people—the police chief officer, the school leadership and the local authority leader—and the public would be consulted only after the order is issued, which is laughable and contemptuous.

Also, there is no workable system for appealing PSPOs locally beyond an appeal to the High Court. Finally, to note the wording of the amendment, these fast-track PSPOs can be issued for activities not just carried on but

“likely to be carried on”,

and that not just have had a detrimental effect but are “likely to have” a detrimental effect. These are weasel words, wholly open to speculation and a pre-crime-like interpretation.

I hope those noble Lords who, on Monday, will oppose the swathe of legislative proposals that threaten to close down protests and chill the rights of free assembly will also oppose this amendment. I find the views of hardcore anti-vax protesters distasteful, nihilistic and absolutely things I would argue against. I actually feel the same about Extinction Rebellion, but that misses the point. We need to be very careful about picking and choosing which protesters we support. If there is a problem of obstruction or any kind of unlawful activity outside schools or vaccine centres it should be dealt with, but I fear this amendment would give succour to the Government ahead of Monday’s battles. I will therefore oppose it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, surprisingly, my remarks will overlap substantially with the noble Baroness’s speech, although they come from a somewhat different perspective.

I thought that the opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was convincing and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply before I make my mind up on how to vote. But it left me wondering whether this approach ought not to be actively considered for extension around not simply schools and vaccination centres but seats of democracy such as Parliament and potentially local councils, where we have seen pretty disgraceful activities that are clearly designed to intimidate elected members—anti-vaccine activists have pursued a highly aggressive strategy. It is notable that that is off the table in the amendment.

There is no reason why this issue should necessarily be covered, but—this is my point of overlap with the noble Baroness—I raise it because I will be listening with interest to what Members of the Opposition and from all sides of the House say about the very controversial measures that are due to come on Monday. I share the concern that we have a real tendency as a House and a legislature to find ourselves in instinctive agreement with measures designed to avoid intimidation from groups whose causes we do not agree with; yet we find ourselves, often subconsciously, contemplating what can be equally intimidatory methods of protest deployed in the name of a cause whose broader case we do agree with. It is really important that we guard against doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for the courteous way in which she always tries to engage with the issues. I also thank all noble Lords who joined the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, can call me naive, but I was, though the amendment and the changed amendment, trying to address some of the concerns that she raised, particularly in trying to make it clear that it was not a blanket ban but was dealing with a very specific problem that has resulted in and around some schools—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was reading my speech, but I acknowledge that the noble Lord said that in his opening. It is perhaps an unintended consequence, but can he see from the Minister’s response that it fuels arguments that they will be using on Monday? That was always my concern.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a different point. I accept some of that. It was not what the Minister was saying, but I take the point. The noble Baroness raises legitimate points. I do not agree with her on many of them, which is fine. It is not a problem. It is the whole point of debate and discussion. The fundamental point is that the amendment seeks to do what the public space protection orders do not do. They are not a blanket ban on protests. They do not allow people to pick and choose in the way that some people, including the Minister, have highlighted.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and do not believe that school leaders, local authority leaders, NHS vaccine providers and the chiefs of police for an area would pick and choose protests. I do not believe it. The school leaders in our country know and understand what causes alarm and distress to parents and pupils in their area and they would not abuse that power—nor, in 99.9% of cases, would local chiefs of police, NHS vaccine providers or local authority leaders of whatever political party. They are upstanding public servants who understand the responsibility that comes with their post and would not seek to use one of these orders inappropriately, just because there happened to be a protest outside a school.

I was a deputy head teacher. There were numerous protests at different times, about different things. We did not seek to ban or stop them. One occasion was when I reintroduced school uniform. There were people saying how ridiculous it was that Coaker was reintroducing school uniform, but I did not stop them doing that; nor do I believe that school leaders, police chiefs or others in an area would do that.

The amendment seeks, for particular circumstances that we have all seen on our televisions and read about in our newspapers, to give an immediate power for people to act reasonably, not to prevent any protests but to deal with a specific situation where alarm or distress is being caused. Whatever the current law says, it is not dealing with people in that situation. All we seek, in a reasonable way, is to give those people the power, in situations where there is consensus and agreement, to take immediate action to protect those going for a vaccine, or children, staff or parents going to school. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the law to provide that and, because of that, I ask to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend has jumped the gun on what I was going to say. We are confident that the statutory disclosure guidance, the latest version of which was published on 16 November, sets out clearly the criteria and principles which chief officers must have regard to in making decisions to disclose non-conviction information.

The safeguards in the statutory disclosure guidance are very robust. Should a chief officer consider that information ought to be disclosed in line with the guidance, the applicant is invited to make representations. Should the decision to disclose be confirmed following any representations given, that information will be included on the certificate that is sent to the applicant only. Importantly, the applicant also has a right to appeal that disclosure through the independent monitor, who considers cases where an individual believes that the information disclosed within an enhanced criminal records certificate is either not relevant to the workforce they are applying for or that it ought not to be disclosed.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

A question was asked earlier about what will happen to people who already have their information—what can we do about that? It is important that drafting takes time; in Committee I spoke about the problem of the drafting of these guidelines and said I wanted good drafting. But I was a bit concerned, as the Minister said that free speech is already protected by the Human Rights Act, but that does not console me because free speech is under attack. We have heard of many instances of where non-crime hate incidents are being used to chill free speech and this—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness that she should not be speaking if she did not speak before the Minister.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I did not understand that, and I apologise. The guidelines are reputation destroying and they need to be reviewed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On Report, questions and interventions are generally for points of elucidation and the Back-Bencher will have spoken before the Minister. That aside, in terms of what happens to historic cases, I think that will be determined upon the updating of the guidance. I will write to noble Lords as I think it is an important point as there may be many examples of it. I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library because it is an important point of clarification.

Getting back to what I was saying about the safeguards, it is important that they balance the rights of job applicants with those of the vulnerable people they might have contact with. This goes back again to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Alongside the existence of this strict statutory disclosure guidance, I can reassure noble Lords further. As I mentioned in the previous debate, DBS records suggest that, in any event, it is rare for non-crime police information of any sort to appear on an enhanced criminal records certificate supplied to a potential employer. This type of information featured in only 0.1% of the 3.9 million enhanced checks issued by the DBS between April 2019 and March 2020.

My noble friend has also, helpfully, raised with me before today whether the government amendment may encompass disclosure within its remit by referring to the processing of data. While the Home Secretary’s code will set out the rules for those who process NCHI data, there is no obligation for the code to address every conceivable act of processing. We have been clear that the Government’s intention is to not include disclosure within the code of practice; as such, the issue of disclosure will not be covered or referenced in any way in the code of practice.

It is imperative that we do not set an unhelpful precedent by legislating in such a way as to undermine the police’s ability to build intelligence on possible offending and risk to life more broadly. I stress again the often vital role that this data plays in helping to safeguard the vulnerable. It is not there to enforce correct opinions—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—nor is it there to serve a purpose unconnected with policing; rather, it is part of the police’s function to prevent crime.

In conclusion, again, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising these important issues. I hope that he can see that the Government have taken him very seriously; the government amendments, together with the assurances that I have given in response to Amendments 109C and 109E, will, I think, address the concerns raised, by bringing parliamentary oversight to this process while protecting fundamental police functions that are already subject to strong safeguards. I hope, therefore, that he will see fit not to press his amendment—he has indicated that he will not—and that he will support the government amendments as drafted. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I raised my opposition to a version of this amendment previously. For once, I was planning to keep out of the gender identity argument—although I agree with both the speech and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—but I feel I must make some response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who said that the concept of gender is causing no problems in the law or among judges. I am delighted about that, but let me tell you that the concept of gender is causing a huge number of problems for many women.

The judge advises that we need to talk to young people who include trans people among their friends. I point out that I have trans people among my friends and spend a huge amount of time talking to young people. There is not just one view on this; there are lots of views. One of the problems we have to recognise is that open debate about gender and trans issues is often chilled, for fear of accusations of hate or bigotry—and, ironically, most of the misogynistic abuse that I and other women have received in recent months and years has been on this issue of being gender-critical.

I will now go back to what I was going to say. My opposition to this amendment is based on a key concern: the need to avoid fuelling a narrative of fear that posits the idea that terrible and unimaginably horrific, but rare, instances of sexual violence and murder are part of a continuum of widespread misogynistic attitudes. This can too easily align everything from online trolling and catcalling to rape and domestic abuse under the label of misogyny—hatred of women.

There is limited time because we have very major things to discuss, so I will focus my remarks. I appreciate that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, explicitly distinguishes between sexual violence crimes and other forms of crime that may be motivated by misogynistic intent, and that it is not an attempt to create any new criminal offences, being more concerned with the police recording and reporting of the number of crimes motivated by hostility towards sex and, sometimes, gender. This, we are told, is crucial to identifying patterns of behaviour and targeting police resources, so that we can build a national picture of violence against women and girls. However, hate crime legislation generally, as echoed in this amendment, in fact means that the data collected is based almost entirely on subjective perceptions and will not allow an accurate picture to emerge.

The amendment talks of a reported crime in which

“(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex, or (b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex”.

So this amendment would not help us understand data as fact but more how victims—or any other third parties—subjectively see either the motivation of the alleged offenders or the crime. To compound the issue, there is no legal or formal definition of “hostility”, so the CPS suggests that we use the everyday understanding of the word, which includes ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. This can lead only to the possibility of an ever- widening set of crimes being badged as misogynistic, with the only evidence being subjective.

The practical outcomes could be severe and serious, as the amendment would alter sentencing. This means, essentially, that, if someone thinks or feels that someone else is being hateful towards them, and the hostility in carrying out the crime is based on sex and explains their offence, that is enough for that person to be locked up in prison for longer. There is also a more insidious punishment: this amendment might mean that more and more behaviour—we know that we mean especially that of men and boys—is deemed to be misogynistic, destroying the reputation of those people once they are labelled as bigots who hate women, according to this categorisation, without necessarily being branded as such in reality.

According to the campaign literature sent out ahead of this discussion, this label of hostility via sex can be used to imply far more than hostility. However minor the original crime, if it is labelled as sex-based hostility we are told that it is an almost inevitable slippery slope and that this is the kind of person who will carry out, if they are not stopped, the most heinous crimes, such as rape, sexual violence and murder. Meanwhile, HOPE not Hate sent round a missive saying that this kind of sex-hostility is a slip road to far-right extremism.

Finally, the Fawcett Society claims that this amendment will give women protection from crime and help ensure the safety of women and girls. I say that it will not: if anything, it could distract the police from the practical, difficult but essential work of on-the-ground patrolling of streets, painstaking investigations, and so on, and the courage to see through those investigations and prosecutions. It might take valuable resources for the police away from policing if they are tangled up in the reporting and monitoring of staff and data which I do not think, as I have shown, is reliable. Consider one of the most gross examples of the abuse of women and girls: the grooming gangs that operated in parts of the north-west of England. Those women and girls would not have been helped one iota had those crimes been called misogynistic. The shameful neglect in the investigation and prosecution of that incident was surely not about whether it was seen as being driven by hostility to sex. This amendment avoids the real problem, is tokenistic and will not help women at all.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and will speak very briefly, not least because I have the privilege of being one of the Deputy Speakers of this House. I would just remind noble Lords that we are at Report, and at Report we are not meant to give either Second Reading or Committee speeches—it is a discourtesy to the House to be discursive. That is all that needs to be said on that.

Some noble Lords may be familiar with a newspaper that is normally far too left-wing for me, the Daily Telegraph. There is an article in today’s paper by a gentleman called Charles Hymas, which says—and I have no reason to believe it is not true, since I understand that there are fairly close links between the aforementioned organ and the party in government—that there are quite a few quite senior Back-Benchers in another place who are very keen to use this amendment, assuming your Lordships pass it, to enable them to have a proper discussion in another place about this issue and to decide then, as our elected representatives, whether this case has sufficient merit to be put into law and in what manner and form that should happen. I suggest that they are rather better qualified to do that than we are.

Having said that, my Lords, I will support this amendment. I think we should send it back to another place for them to have another look. The other place is also a better place to have what can be an extremely contorted and overimaginative debate about gender and the relative merits of sex and gender.

As others have said, I am not sure that generationally we are the best-equipped assembly to opine on these subjects. That does not mean that we are not able to have a point of view, and I am aware that some noble Lords and noble Baronesses have a very strong point of view. I simply point out that, however strongly they may feel, there are a great many others of a younger generation, and down the other end, who feel differently. I support this amendment, because I think your Lordships should give the other place a chance to decide for itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, we are at Report stage—although it would be very easy to misrecognise it as Second Reading. I have been supporting the Government this afternoon—but not at this stage and probably not for most of the rest of the debate.

The fact is that this amendment—and most that follow—to my mind, we must support. I entirely accept that it is nonsensical to suggest that by Clause 56, and most of those that follow, the Government is intent on repression. They are not trying consciously to suppress our hallowed rights of protest, of demonstration and of assembly. That is not the position. But I suggest strongly that that is the public perception—that is what the public believe—and understandably so, because it is such an overreaction to anything that has happened.

I too excoriate Insulate Britain: they behaved outrageously and undemocratically, so flatly contrary to the rule of law and wider interests, that we must amend to ensure that they are arrestable and imprisonable without going through the process of contempt of court proceedings in future. But these provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, simply lack all common sense, they lack all balance and measure, and they are counterproductive.

The noble Baroness behind me suggested that we all, and the wider public, protest things such as stopping the Tube trains, but I would remind your Lordships—I think I have just read—that those who committed that apparent offence were resoundingly acquitted. The fact is that if we pass laws such as this law, that is going to be the reaction: the Government are going to be regarded as tyrants and the public will not play.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I tried to say that I think we do not want to muddle up too many things. The Bill might have been brought forward in order to deal with the popular revulsion at things such as the M25 sit-ins or getting on top of the Tube, and we have heard that from a number of noble Lords.

The point about this set of proposals, though, and things such as the triggering noise, is that they do not solve that problem. That is what drives me mad. The second lot of amendments—which were brought in anti-democratically in terms of process—at least looked like they referred to that set of egregious demonstrations. So that is that bit.

One thing that has been said which I think is very important is that there is a fractious atmosphere in society, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about last time we had this discussion, which is that people feel very strongly about some of the issues of the day. They are not prepared to always say that they support the right of demonstration; they think that something else is going on.

But one thing they definitely think is that the police are biased. They think that the police are erratic. Some people will say, “Well, the police won’t intervene because they’re all too busy taking the knee or driving around in rainbow-coloured vans”. Other people will say, “The police are acting like far-right stormtroopers protecting different types of people.” There is a public debate going on about the role of the police.

So, my objection to these amendment is that not only does it concentrate on noise, which nobody has ever complained about—who has brought that up?—but it puts the police in an even more invidious position. I do want to know how the Government will deal with that. The SOAS policy briefing, which I thought summed it up well, said that the Bill

“compels the police to make decisions about whether protests can go ahead, and therefore forces the police to become a visible and controversial actor in ordinary political debate.”

I think that this will make the position of the police much worse, so even if you are not on the side of the right to protest with no ifs and no buts—as I am—from the Government’s point of view and the Home Secretary’s point of view, who say they are doing it to help the police, they are actually putting the police in a position where they are wandering around assessing noise levels and therefore choosing which demos go ahead, which everybody will think is to do with politics and not procedure. So there seem to me to be some unintended consequences of that approach.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I share many of the concerns that have been expressed—particularly the absence of a sufficient mischief here and the absence of proper definition of the ingredients of the offence.

I will add just one further point: the ability to demonstrate, and the ability to demonstrate while making a noise, is a very valuable safety valve in our civil society. If you close off that safety valve, you are going to cause a far greater mischief than is currently the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Government say that they are a law and order party, and it is important to recognise that law and order requires that, when Parliament makes criminal laws and sets out clear rules, the public themselves can decide whether they will be on the side of law and order or on the side of criminality. That requires that the laws that are introduced are proportional and have clarity.

Any member of the public needs to know whether they are breaking the law, so that they will not be labelled a criminal, but in this whole group of new amendments there is no clear guidance on, for example, what is a reasonable excuse. In an earlier set of amendments, the “ought to know” clause completely made it clear that one might not know. The phrase “reasonable excuse” is used as though one were guilty already and needed to give a good excuse for a perfectly reasonable, legal activity that is now treated with suspicion; the legal burden of proof is on the defence, whereas it should be a burden on the prosecution.

In Committee, when asked what reasonable excuse one might use for carrying a bicycle lock if it could be seen as potentially preparation for locking on, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams said:

“It is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for carrying the equipment in question. For example, carrying a bike lock for the purposes of locking one’s bike to a designated space for bikes could be considered a reasonable excuse”.—[Official Report, 24/11/2021; col. 994.]


It struck me then that this is a situation whereby we have to explain to the authorities that in fact we are just carrying a bike lock and that we might want to lock our bike up, and that no, we were not the type of person who might misuse our bike lock. To be honest with you, that is no business of the police, the Government or the authorities. It seems alarming that people will need to have reasonable excuses for carrying out peaceful and lawful actions to avoid, potentially, prison terms. This is the micromanagement of what is considered to be the right kind of protest, when the Government claim that it is not attacking protests.

I would like to counter some of the arguments used by people I am broadly on the side of.

[A noble Lord]

Too long.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I know that this side wants us all not to debate, but I am going to carry on for a moment. I want to get to the vote—I am trying to win a vote. It is allowed—just let me get on with it.

The point that I wanted to make was that this is not about whether we think that there is a climate emergency or not. It is not about what side you are on in particular demonstrations. There are some people on this side who may think that people labelled anti-vaxxers should not be allowed to have demonstrations. We have to be careful about picking and choosing which protests we want.

The proposals increase criminal liability without the need of knowledge of wrongdoing for a whole range of people who might just want to express a different political opinion, which I still think is what debate and protest is all about. If you do not have the knowledge of wrongdoing in that way, peaceful protests will be criminalised, and it will have a chilling effect on the right to protest.

The Government say that they are doing something on law and order, but they are inadvertently criminalising all sorts of innocent people, whether they like it or not. That will damage the right to protest.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I came into the debate late on the day we voted. I was really quite shocked to find what was being debated, and I listened very carefully to the contributions. Because I had not heard the Minister speak from the Dispatch Box, I did not take part in the debate; I felt that I would be criticised for coming in without having heard the full discussion. But I have practised in the criminal courts for 50 years—I was called to the Bar 50 years ago—so I can tell noble Lords that I was very alarmed at the content, and I echo what has just been said by one of our distinguished judges.

I really was concerned at the absence of discretion here. You could have such a range with this kind of manslaughter charge, and it is a shocking idea that a mandatory life sentence might be passed on someone very youthful in circumstances such as were described—you can never completely cover every possibility—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, where the consequence of a tragedy could also lead to the double tragedy of somebody spending their life in prison because the sentence is mandatory. So I really do think we have to think twice here. Of course, we have to protect our public servants, but it is vital that we keep true to the idea that different cases require different responses, and that there have to be some exceptions.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, relatively new as I am to this House, I try to follow procedure and often fail to do so, and I am rightly reprimanded by fellow Peers when that happens and when mistakes are made. I am also very conscious of the democratic deficit of this House as unelected legislators. But, in relation to this issue, I was shocked by what I saw as an abuse of procedure by the introduction of this very important Harper’s law at such a late stage. I felt that that was bending the stick, to say the least, in terms of taking this House and its procedures seriously.

So, from my point of view, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has explained very well that this is a modest amendment that does not try to overturn the spirit of what was passed earlier on but is trying to deal with what I think are unintended consequences that the Government themselves do not want to see—that is not their intention. But Harper’s law is not a minor matter. Since that bit of a mess by which it was passed last time, I have had some sleepless nights imagining that I might in any way be responsible for the unintended consequences that I really do not think the Minister wants to happen, but which could happen unless the Bill is unamended—which is why I support this amendment in these unusual circumstances.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I am glad that he referred to the fact that Scotland had commissioned a report on this. Indeed, the report, which I chaired the working group to complete, took the same view as the Law Commission of England and Wales, in that we did not suggest that there should be a hate crime relating to sex or gender. In fact, we felt that misogyny is different in its nature and that the hate crime framework is not an appropriate way to deal with the problem.

I voted for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, because nothing else seems to be on offer at the moment in England and Wales, but Scotland is looking at the creation of misogyny legislation. That is not because misogyny should be criminalised, because ways of thinking should never be criminalised. I have said that in this House before. I spoke only last Thursday in the International Women’s Day debate, in which I described how important it is to protect ways of thinking, because in our forum internum is our creativity, imagination and the ways in which we solve the world’s problems. Unfortunately, it is also the seat of the rather negative sentiments that people might feel, such as hatred. It is the actions that flow from that way of thinking that one has to look at and see whether they are appropriately criminalised.

In this House, we repeatedly have debates about the failure to prosecute rape, about domestic violence, stalking, revenge porn and so on. These continue to be insoluble and difficult to prosecute because of the mindsets of many of the decision-makers—even police officers on the ground, those prosecuting and making decisions about prosecuting, and those within our courtrooms. Unless we deal with this way of thinking in our society, we will continue to have these problems. I say that as someone who has practised at the Bar for more decades than I care to count. I have written about this and studied it. I have spent time looking at other jurisdictions, all of which have the same problems. Misogyny is a problem at the base of all this. Unless you address it seriously, you will not address the problems of how we deal with this continuing flourishing of crime against women and girls.

I urge the Government—any Government—to address misogyny. Our world is filled with it; it is a serious problem, and the way to address it is by trying to shift the dial among those who make the decisions to make them address their own way of thinking. That is what we sought to do in the working group that worked on this in Scotland. I urge all noble Lords to read the recommendations we made, because it is a serious piece of work. It is not knee-jerk or about saying, “Let’s just draw down the hate crime stuff”, because we are talking about what happens to 52% of our population. There is hardly a woman who will not be able to describe having been harassed, spoken to in unacceptable ways, degraded, humiliated or dehumanised at some point in her lifetime. That is what women are complaining of, and it is every woman, so let us have that in mind.

I heard what the Minister said about seeking to address this seriously. The Law Commission said that it was not within its remit to look at whether there should be a public harassment offence. We decided on having a public misogyny harassment offence and did not make it simply about sexual harassment, because the harassment is not of a sexual nature for older women; it is not the saying of the gross things that we have heard about from so many women.

What has happened in our society, and the reason why this is so urgent now, is that the internet—social media—has disinhibited people to say things that they would normally keep to themselves, even if they did have those intents on some women. Even if they did want to degrade and humiliate women, they would keep it to themselves. However, the internet has allowed people to pour this stuff out and it is translated on to the street. What used to be only online five years ago is now happening at the bus stop.

I want people to have this in mind; it is not some trivial matter. Noble Lords must see the enormity of the problem now: the stuff that is said to young women coming out of student unions, pubs and clubs would make men in this Chamber ashamed of their own gender—their own sex. Something has to be done about it. It is very different from what is experienced by men, so let us not make this mad equivalence, as though men at the end of their night in the pub say to each other, “Charlie, text me when you get home.” Men do not do that, because they do not have the same fear built into them from the age of nine that somehow there is something fearful out there, and it takes male form. That is the problem for girls and women: they are brought up knowing that there is something to be afraid of.

We really have to take this seriously. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has asked us to do because it is a signal to the women out there that we take it seriously. Women came in front of our commission and said that something has to be done. It may be that, in the longer term, we will have to introduce a misogyny Bill, like in Scotland. We advocated that where there is an offence, such as assault, threatening behaviour or criminal damage, judges can enhance the sentence so that there is an aggravation. It should not be inside a hate crime Bill, because it is different.

Most men do not hate women, but somehow from boyhood they breathe in this sense of entitlement and now feel entitled to say publicly things to women that noble Lords would not believe. Women who are parliamentarians, who write in newspapers or are campaign leaders receive online and now offline the most egregious threats to be raped or killed, which put them in fear. Is it any wonder, therefore, that women do not want to take part in public life or step forward to ask for equal pay or an improvement in their status in the workplace? They are undermined in their self-confidence and self-worth. We have to do something about it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I disagree with this amendment, but I agree with one part, at least, of what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just said: any woman will indeed have heard the vile abuse that is spewed out online and can go offline to the bus stop, as she indicated. There is a coarsening of what is said to women, but that is my challenge: although it is vile, legislation to deal with what is said to women could well be a serious challenge to free speech.

Free speech matters because an emphasis on the cause of women’s safety could well be, and some women certainly believe so, at odds with the cause of women’s freedom and liberation. Despite everything, if we are going to say that words matter, by constantly talking about misogyny as a problem that is so rife in society we are, as I have said, in danger of frightening young women into believing that misogyny is indeed everywhere and that all men are misogynists and so on, so I want some caution here.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion F2 and the other amendments in this group. I start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the selfless actions of PC Keith Palmer, who tragically died five years ago today.

I apologise for the length of my remarks, but there are numerous important issues contained in this group. I promise not to spend an average of more than two minutes on each Motion. There are few subjects on which I am an expert, but the policing of public order is one. I was one of a small cadre of advanced trained public order senior officers, and I have extensive experience of policing events. I remind the House that the majority of police forces outside London told HMICFRS that they did not need new public order legislation, and that the limiting factor in policing protests was the number of public-order-trained police officers they had to police protests. A whistleblower who worked for HMICFRS said that the conclusions in its review of public order policing did not reflect the evidence that the inspectorate had gathered. Having read the report in full, I agree. There is no justification for more public order legislation.

In relation to Motion E, the police already have powers to impose any conditions necessary—including an outright ban—on public processions, if a senior police officer reasonably believes that it will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or if the purpose is to intimidate others. Adding a noise trigger to those powers will do more harm than good. As I said in Committee, from my experience, the more conditions you impose on a procession, the more likely those conditions are to be resisted and, therefore, the more police officers you will need to enforce them. As I have said, police forces already say that they do not have enough public-order-trained police officers.

A peaceful protest with no anticipated violent infiltrators and an agreed route—however large—can be policed with a minimum number of police officers and a lot of traffic cones and miles of white tape. Imposing conditions which the organisers are resisting is likely to require between double and five times the number of police officers. This is because confrontation must be anticipated, and the conditions may have to be imposed by force—such as a march wanting to take a different route. An outright ban on a protest, as well as being unlikely to be successful—as we saw with the Sarah Everard vigil on Clapham Common—requires about 10 times as many police officers as are required for a compliant, peaceful demonstration. How many police officers would it have taken to police the Sarah Everard vigil, in the middle of a common, if there had been agreement between the police and the organisers? The more conditions which can be imposed, and the more draconian those conditions, the bigger the drain will be on already overstretched police resources.

The second issue is the impact on trust and confidence in the police, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just said. The impact of the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil was hugely negative, and the government proposals will simply increase the potential for, and frequency of, such scenes. By banning some demonstrations on the basis of anticipated noise, and not others, the police will be subjected to accusations that they are being political rather than practical. They will be accused of being selective about which protests can take place for political reasons—such as banning demonstrations against war, as they are likely to be enormous and noisy, but allowing demonstrations in favour of war to go ahead, as they are not likely to be very well supported, to take a Russian example. Such a change in the law is likely to draw the police reputation into even more disrepute. In addition, I ask how many times the business of this House or the other place has been disrupted because of noise by protestors. I suggest none —and I do not believe that the House has double glazing. In any event, the police can always divert disruptive demonstrations away from sensitive areas. This change—the noise trigger—is unnecessary and damaging, and we will be voting to support the Labour amendments.

Motion F is about maintaining the current position, where the police can impose conditions on those holding an assembly, a static protest or a meeting but cannot ban it altogether. The Government argue that their proposals simply bring assemblies into line with the powers that the police have in relation to processions, but there are very good reasons why the two should be treated differently.

As I said in Committee, on 13 January 1986 in the House of Commons, the then Conservative Home Secretary, later Lord Hurd of Westwell, explained why processions were being treated differently from assemblies:

“We stopped short of a power to ban”


assemblies

“because we believed that that would be an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech. For this reason, clause 14 does not permit the police to impose conditions changing the date and time of an assembly.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/1986; col. 797.]

We agree, and the effect of my amendment is to achieve the same result.

Already, if a senior police officer reasonably believes that an assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of a community, or that the purpose of the assembly is to intimidate others, he or she can, under existing legislation, impose conditions on where the assembly takes place; tell an existing assembly to move somewhere else; limit how long it goes on for; and/or limit the numbers attending. The wording of my Amendment 80G in Motion F2 is different from simply insisting on the amendment we made to remove the new provision proposed by the Government on Report —as Motion F1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, does—but the effect is the same.

The only thing the police cannot do under existing legislation is to ban a static protest altogether. The police already have all the tools they need to deal with unlawful assemblies, but to give the police the power to stop people protesting at all smacks of Putin’s Russia, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I will seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 80G in Motion F2.

On Motion G, we share the concerns of others that all large demonstrations that have the potential to spill over into the road and, either by accident or design, impede vehicular access to Parliament could be banned even when Parliament is not sitting. We believe that this is legislative overreach, relying as it does on the discretion of the police to enforce it or not. However, we do not agree that the police should be able to give permission to allow entrances to Parliament to be blocked when Parliament is in session, so we do not insist on Lords Amendment 82.

On Motion H, we share the concerns of others that those who engage in peaceful sit-down protests, however short the duration, should face the potential penalty of imprisonment for highway obstruction where previously they could have been only fined. As we saw with the Insulate Britain protests, existing legislation, including the application for and enforcement of injunctions, can be successfully used to deal with persistent offenders, including imprisonment for those who breach injunctions. However, with the undertaking given by the Minister at the Dispatch Box that imprisonment is intended to be used only in the most egregious cases, we hope that this increased penalty does not have the chilling effect it may otherwise have done on peaceful protest.

On Motion N, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for raising the issue and for the Government’s response.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I regret that we heard the Home Secretary and now the Minister accept the principle of the Opposition’s fast-track public space protection orders in relation to Motion H and use that to justify broader anti-protest amendments as a balance in protecting non-protesters. I regret it but I am not surprised. The danger of advocating any measures that strengthen anti-protest measures is that it sets a tone that suggests that some protesters are good and some are bad, which politicises a general and universal right that I think we should defend. Putting that to one side, I want to oppose the Government’s doubling-down on a noise trigger and follow on particularly from the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others who have expressed their opposition so well.

I want to nod to the democratic dilemma of this ping-pong and whether we are actually blocking democracy. When summing up the rejection of the second tranche of anti-protest amendments on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, chided all of us who opposed them for ignoring the public’s demand that authorities deal with new forms of protest activities such as those we have seen used by Extinction Rebellion and its offspring, such as Insulate Britain.

I disagreed that those amendments would have dealt with those new forms of protest. I thought they were so broad as to sweep up all and any protests, including anyone who might have wanted to protest against net zero, to take an example of a different political side. The state also already has huge powers, whether the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act or the Public Order Act, as we have heard, that could have been used to deal with these forms of protest which are a particular nuisance, as the public would have it. Despite that, I felt the Government were at least responding to a particular form of protest about which there has been some public agitation and concern. Therefore, that chiding was listened to.

But now, here we are with government amendments on protest that bear absolutely no relation to the Home Office’s motivation on new forms of protest. I do not think the Government have a democratic mandate for these amendments. Fundamental and foundational democratic rights, such as the right to assemble or protest or the right to free speech, should be protected by an iron curtain. If there is any attempt to undermine them, the presumption must rest with the Government to justify in absolutely clear terms, with a sense of the absolutely exceptional reasons for the proposed changes, any more draconian measures being brought in.

It just does not add up. As I have noticed before, even these new types of protest that apparently upset the public are often silent, so the noise trigger does not apply to them in any way whatever. The authorities should consider proposing accruing further power when limiting the right to assembly, and ultimately the right to free speech, only ever in exceptional circumstances. In this instance, those exceptional circumstances are just not there.

Even more galling is the smoke and mirrors of posing these proposals as protecting the public from the consequences of protest. The public are described as “non-protesters”; as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, this turns the public into two different groups of people, but actually the public are the people who go on protests. They might not go on all of them all the time, but it is their right as the public that we are talking about. There is an Alice in Wonderland approach here that gets the issues upside-down and implies that the Government are far removed from the reality that free protests have been crucial for the public over centuries. The denial of that right, whether in Putin’s Russia or China’s Hong Kong, should be a visceral reminder to us here of why protest —warts and all—matters.

Of course not all protests are popular. Many of the modern protests I have mentioned, such as those by Extinction Rebellion, I do not support and they irritate me but, as with all fundamental democratic rights—free speech, free association and so on—it does not matter whether they are annoying, unpleasant or objectionable, or even if those demonstrations are directed in a hostile way against what you believe to be true.

We cannot pick and choose which speech or which protest we agree with and then endorse only the ones that we like. We have to make sure that we do not let those kinds of political prejudices get in the way. We are bound to feel uncomfortable at times when people protest for things that we disagree with, but that is freedom for you. It has never been claimed that living in a free society is safe and cosy. It is designed to make you, on occasion, feel uncomfortable. But there are principles here. As the Court of Appeal notes:

“The right to protest becomes effectively worthless if the protesters’ choice of ‘when and where’ to protest is not respected as far as possible”,


and I stand by that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 31st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly, partly because the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was kind enough to refer to an earlier speech that I had made. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Russell, who have been able to move things forward in an acceptable way, but I think there comes a point where this House has to have very real regard for its constitutional position vis-à-vis the other place. We were justified in asking the other place to think again and, I believe, justified in asking it to think yet again.

I was approached last week by two Conservative Back-Benchers—I will not name them—and they were keen that we should give them another opportunity to think again, which we did. But the fact is that they have not thought again, not by a majority. Some may have changed their votes, but they did not change the position of the other place. It is my reluctant view, particularly on the noise issue, which I think is rather preposterous, that we should now yield to the other place, but if ever a Bill called for post-legislative scrutiny to examine closely how it plays out on the streets and in the public squares, this is it. I hope there will be a proper opportunity to keep these matters under review, but we should have a mind for our constitutional position, and have regard for the fact that we are not the elected House and there is a point beyond which we should not go.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is right to raise the important point about our constitutional obligations. I am tentative about what I am going to say because I am anxious not to act in defiance of an elected Chamber, not just for constitutional reasons but because democracy is very valuable, and we should have modesty in relation to our role in this place. However, I do feel that, at the very least, the Government are obliged to untangle some serious confusion about why the legislation in relation to protest is even necessary.

When it was originally introduced, there were grandiose claims that this was the Government responding to public concerns—a real clamour from the public—about dealing with new forms of protest. It is true that there has been a lot of anger in the public realm about new forms of protest. Anybody who objected to the amendments tabled by the Government was dismissed as “ignoring voters’ concerns”—just by objecting, in effect, they were being anti-democratic. Yet now the Minister comes back here and suggests that, in relation to the noise trigger, for example, it is a just a modest update of the law and it will not be used very often. It seems to me that the original motivation for these clauses has been lost, and we have ended up with a disproportionate and unnecessary commitment by the Government to deal with a non-problem.

There is perhaps some confusion because earlier this week, as people will have read in the newspaper, a mum was banned from driving for what was described as “nudging” some Insulate Britain protesters. She was trying to get her 11 year-old to school and was exasperated that the protesters would not move, and that the police were not acting to remove them. There was some popular backlash to the fact that this driver was the person who was prosecuted, and at a meeting I talked to people who said, “Well, the mum is not guilty of dangerous driving. The problem here was the failure of the police to police the protest.” They went on to say, “At least the Government are acting and bringing in a new law that will deal with this sort of thing.” When I explained the nature of the new laws that were being brought in, in relation to noise and static assemblies, they said, “What’s the good of that? That won’t deal with the problem of the mum and the motorway and the protester”, and they are right.

Despite reservations, I support the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, in the amended amendments that they have brought back, taking on board the modest comments that have been made. I think that these anti-protest clauses are being mis-sold to the public, who, when it is explained to them, do not see any connection between their clamour and these clauses being brought in by the Government.

If there is an issue with protest, it is possibly that the police have not consistently policed protests that have happened over the last few years with the powers that they have, and there is public concern about that. It seems to me that both these clauses, as illustrated by the points made from the Front Bench, will make the police’s job even more complicated and will compromise them politically because they will be accused of subjective interpretations of what is “too noisy” and what is the threat of a static demonstration. I think the Government will inadvertently help to politicise the police, and make the situation of protests more confusing, and they are not doing what I think they originally wanted to do, which was to assure the public that their concerns about new forms of protest would be honoured in legislation. These parts of the Bill do nothing useful for anyone.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I do think that we ought to consider carefully what my noble friend Lord Cormack said, but it might lead one to a different conclusion. This House is increasingly treated as if it does not really matter at all. The Government are not taking seriously very simple suggestions, when making them is our job—suggestions to make Acts work properly. Today we have had an example of what the Government can do. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Russell, put that extremely well. The Government have recognised that the sensible, continuous pressure of the House of Lords has brought them to make alterations—not exactly as the noble Lord would like, but a good way in that direction. It is notable that it has taken us all this time to do it.

What worries me—I say to my noble friend Lord Cormack that this is a serious constitutional matter—is that the deal works only if the House of Lords believes that its debates and discussions are useful and taken into account by government. What I have seen here is wholly different. This is nothing to do with my noble friend Lady Williams; it is to do with the Government as a whole. When I was Secretary of State, I would say to my Lords Minister, “These are the five things I need. Those are the 10 things I’d like to have, but if their Lordships produce good arguments for other things, then you must give way to them, because that is the purpose”. What Lords Minister today is able to do that? Yet that was the deal; that was why we were here. This is a really serious issue. It is no good the Government saying in the end, “Well, we’ll just use the majority in the House of Commons to shut you up”, when the arguments we have been bringing forward are not great arguments of state or great arguments which clash; they are about making the law work.

The other change that has taken place in the House of Commons is that Members there do not debate these Bills any longer. They do not have the hours that we used to have. When I was a Member of that House, we used to have to have 100 hours of debate before you could get a guillotine. Now we do not have to have anything like that; guillotines are automatic. So if this House does not do its job and discuss these things in detail, they will not be discussed at all. That is the constitutional issue we face today.

I will address only the one thing which I think is very clear. It is incomprehensible to have a law which gives the police the right to stop a protest because it might be too noisy. The Notes of course make it ludicrous. I am very worried about the domestic arrangements of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, if the only thing he can discuss with his wife is the laws as presented by this Government. If I started to discuss those with my wife, I think my domestic arrangements would be very unsuitable. I merely say that the reason you go on a protest is to draw attention to something. The noble Lord rightly said, and I think I said it myself when I intervened previously, that the more popular the cause, the more likely it is that there will be noise. If I had a protest about the unfair treatment of chihuahuas, I might not get many people with me and I probably would not be stopped—but a protest on, for example, the unsatisfactory dealings with Ukrainians coming to this country might raise huge numbers. Do the chihuahuas get a campaign but the Ukrainians do not—and who makes that decision?