Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I speak in support of Amendment 132B, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, to which I have added my name, and which provides for a new clause in the Bill. I ask the Minister to listen quite carefully and consider bringing back a government amendment on Report to address the issues that we have raised. There is a really important issue about the accountability and scrutiny of these developing technologies of surveillance and weapons.

The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that drones and other new surveillance or weapons technology can be deployed by the police only within parameters and regulations set by the Secretary of State; in other words, it seeks to ensure proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny rather than leaving it as a matter of exclusive police discretion. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has pointed out, when, in the past, other forms of technological surveillance, and indeed digital technology, were not properly regulated, they started to encroach on privacy in a major way. We have all seen examples of that or experienced it ourselves.

Police in England and Wales are considering using drone-mounted cameras that could film high-quality live footage from 1,500 feet—457 metres—away, which raises concerns among civil liberties campaigners. The National Police Air Service—NPAS—which provides air support to 46 police forces, has asked private companies for information about systems that offer both airborne imaging and air-to-ground communication. A government website stated on 21 September:

“The imaging systems are intended for use on BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight) remotely-piloted aircraft systems: ‘Drones’.”


The NPAS told potential bidders that the systems should be capable of transmitting live, high-quality images even in low light, using electro-optical or infra-red systems. It said that this would enable officers to pick out detail such as facial features, as well as clothing and vehicle registration plates, at a distance of between 500 feet and 1,500 feet. The NPAS added that the cameras should be able to operate on a drone that stays in the air for up to four hours and flies up to 30 miles from the base station from which it is controlled.

Drones have been used by various English and Welsh police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, which has explained that they have been deployed to survey crime scenes and provide live footage of operations. That is all to the good as a response to serious crime. It seems, however, that the NPAS may plan a national rollout of drone technology, which raises all manner of civil liberty issues, including privacy, how much autonomy will be granted to private companies operating such drone technology for surveillance by the state, and whether it will target legitimate protesters as opposed to criminals and terrorists.

I ask these questions because these important issues cannot simply be a matter for operational police decision-making. They should be placed within an accountable regulatory environment that can be scrutinised by Parliament. CCTV is already ubiquitous and operated by private companies able to watch whatever we do, certainly in urban areas. Surveillance of the vehicles we drive is also universal. Big tech companies are increasingly monitoring almost our every move.

Deployment of police drones with algorithmic and facial recognition technology should be properly regulated. This is the essence of what I am asking the Minister to respond to. Drone surveillance has even been used to stalk dog walkers during lockdown. It is not acceptable for a Home Office spokesperson simply to say, recently:

“Use of drones is an operational matter for police forces.”


Nor is it sufficient for Ministers to say that the police are already subject to the Air Navigation Order and the general data protection regulation. Although it was reported in the Guardian that the Home Office says increased use of drones would allow police forces to replace helicopters, reducing noise and carbon emissions, that should not be a reason to duck the necessity for proper accountability and scrutiny. I stress, to the Minister and to your Lordships’ House, that this amendment does not seek to block police deployment of drones for legitimate purposes such as to tackle criminals, drug or people traffickers, terrorists, or racist or fascist demonstrations targeting black, Jewish or Muslims citizens.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry, to which I gave evidence earlier this year, has already revealed stark injustices and abuses of liberty and privacy. The High Court has recognised this in its recent judgment finding against the Metropolitan Police in a case brought by environmental protestor Kate Wilson, who was intimately and improperly befriended by undercover police officer Mark Kennedy. Other example like this were revealed by the Undercover Policing Inquiry. I mention these because they relate to accountability, scrutiny and proper regulation. One undercover police officer told the inquiry that she did not know why she was infiltrating one feminist group, as only four people attended a meeting she went to. But she was deployed in this way, instead of on serious undercover police work, such as what I saw and approved as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was legitimate undercover police work.

This amendment is about ensuring drone technology is used to put serious crime under proper surveillance, is accountable and does not get out of control, as undercover police officers did. I have spoken previously in this House, on another Bill, about the improper use of undercover police officers to monitor and put under surveillance anti-Apartheid demonstrators, instead of pursuing the South African security services who were bombing Nelson Mandela’s headquarters in London. I will not go on about this, but my point is that the deployment of undercover police officers should have been more properly regulated. I hope that the current inquiry, headed by Judge Mitting, will produce recommendation to that effect, given that it was set up by the Government, which I welcome. The question is how deployment is regulated and who makes the ultimate decisions. I believe it should be based on a warrant—which I signed hundreds of, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and when substituting for the Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary—to deal with serious crime.

To give an example of what I think would have been a legitimate deployment of drone technology if it had existed then—I will describe this generally so as not to give away what was really going on—I witnessed graphic video-based surveillance of paramilitary members with guns seeking to attack fellow citizens in Belfast when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 2005. That was done for entirely legitimate purposes. I will not describe how exactly it was done because I do not think that should be publicly revealed. The operation of a drone in that situation—because drone technology did not exist in the form that it does now—would have been entirely legitimate and I saw at first hand the way it could be legitimately deployed.

However, I can also see how this could be spread, if it is simply an operational decision by police, to target non-violent demonstrators and environmental activists. We may not approve of their methods, but we have already seen members of Extinction Rebellion put on a terrorist list by police forces. When that was revealed they of course said that they should not have been. This is about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Without such accountability, how do we know that drone-based surveillance is not being targeted on illegitimate purposes like undercover police officers most certainly were?

If the noble Baroness is willing to look at this, and she might find some technical reasons why our amendment is not acceptable to her, it may be that the same kind of authority should be given as under the warrant procedure for authorising surveillance. As I have just explained, I signed hundreds of those as Northern Ireland Secretary of State and in other capacities. Maybe that is one of the ways in which ultimately the Secretary of State would take the decision and be ultimately accountable under the legislation that Parliament passes. Parliament can therefore scrutinise, if not every decision, then the general pattern of decisions made. We need something similar for drone surveillance and this amendment tabled by my noble friend provides for that. I hope the Government will address this so that we do not have to bring back the same amendment or a similar one on Report, because the Government will have recognised this is an important issue and taken the initiative themselves. I ask her to consider that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, way back in 2004 I was the Deputy Mayor of London—when there was only one deputy mayor and not a whole host of them. In that role I attended DSEI, the arms fair. What struck me was that there was a terrifying amount of military equipment being sold and repurposed for use by police forces and Governments against their own citizens. That was a few years ago and I imagine the situation has got much worse since.

On another occasion I was outside a kettle in Whitehall chatting to the senior police officer trying to give him some good advice about how to communicate with the crowd. He had a phone call, he stepped away to take it and when he came back, he said “I’ve just been told not to speak to you any more.” I asked, “Who by?” and he pointed at the helicopter that had been flying over us. That was the first time I realised just how powerful the cameras were; they had not only been able to photograph me but also recognise me which, from the top of my head, I would have thought almost impossible.

There is always a great amount of mission creep with this type of technology and people can get carried away with it. Our own Prime Minister infamously wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money buying illegal water cannons when he was Mayor of London. They ended up rotting down in Kent and I am not sure we ever managed to sell them—perhaps we sold them for scrap. As far as I know there is still no oversight or regulation of the facial recognition technology. I would be very interested to hear the Minister tell me about that, because I have been agitating for that for some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support Amendments 133 and 149 in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who has spoken so eloquently, and the unavoidably absent noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Bourne. I also wish to support Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others. I refer noble Lords to my interest in policing ethics that is set out in the register.

As I said at Second Reading, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people have been a vital part of the economy of our nation—not least its agricultural sector—for many generations. Their mobility has enabled them to provide labour at the point of need for shorter or longer periods of time. The consequence of that very flexibility is that they have not acquired fixed land, property or dwellings over generations, but are constantly at the whim of the availability of sites and pitches for their vehicles and caravans. The labour shortages that presently beset us might serve as a reminder that we owe a debt to those who have provided a flexible workforce in times past. Instead, this Bill seeks to push them towards criminality while making no adequate alternative provision for them.

Amendment 149 is vital to the integrity of the Bill. It will repair the damage caused by the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and give local authorities a statutory duty to provide authorised sites and adequate numbers of pitches. The present law is clearly failing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reiterated. Sixty out of 68 authorities in the south-east are not at present complying with the Government’s own planning policy. The problem with Clause 62 as it stands is that it seeks to respond only to the consequences and not to the cause. The world-renowned Desmond Tutu, formerly archbishop of Cape Town, famously remarked that it is not enough to fish bodies out of the river; we need to take a stroll upstream to see who is throwing them in. Amendment 149 addresses the cause directly; indeed, with it in place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, there may be little need for any of Clause 62 as drafted.

The present situation, with a planning policy but no clear statutory duty, places local authorities in an unenviable position. There are few, if any, votes in providing sites for Travellers; if there were, undoubtedly the planning policy would be upheld. On these Benches, we understand that sometimes the role of a bishop is to take responsibility for the unpopular decision that no parish priest dare take for fear of alienating some among their congregation. Amendment 149 will provide similar support for local councillors and council officers who seek to provide for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, sometimes in the teeth of hostile and prejudiced opposition.

Sometimes Ministers respond to requests for amendments such as this by indicating that the issue has merit but that some other, future Bill is the more proper route through which to deal with it. However, in this case, such argument should be afforded very little weight. Amendment 149 is not tacked on to a clause seeking to deal with very different matters; it lies at the heart of tackling the issues that Clause 62 purports to address. If there is to be a Clause 62 at all—and that is a matter for your Lordships’ consideration —this amendment is central to it.

I now turn briefly to the other amendments to which I have referred. I am grateful for the draft statutory guidance the Minister has shared with some of us: I hope that this indicates a willingness to work with those of us particularly interested in the clause. However, as it stands, it does not provide adequate safeguards against the clause being used prejudicially. Nor does it tackle the points of principle that amendments in this group seek to address. Amendment 133 may seem a matter of detail, but it is important detail. It is a matter of principle. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to allow a landowner or other third party to escalate a matter of trespass to the level of a criminal offence without reference to any constable is a very grave matter. It could provide statutory support for decisions taken on pure prejudice. A judgment on whether particular circumstances constitute criminality is not something that, in situations such as this, should be devolved to any private individual, let alone one who may have a direct interest in the land or property in question.

As well as these matters of principle, there are strong, pragmatic reasons for this amendment. The presence and leading role of a police officer will be an important safeguard against abuse of the law, as well as assisting in providing a robust evidential chain should a prosecution follow. I hope the Minister will be able to accept this modest amendment or agree to meet us to find a mutually acceptable alternative before Report.

Finally, Amendment 147 seeks to include Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people within the same general safety net that applies to other households. The law properly places a high bar on depriving anyone of their home. The process by which a mortgage lender or residential landlord can evict a person from their dwelling is surrounded by robust safeguards. It takes time, and it should take time. Those affected, who may include children, vulnerable adults and others to whom a relevant local authority may have a duty to provide accommodation, need to be afforded adequate protection from seizure while they either identify and move to an alternative location or are given access to some other safe and secure place to live.

The safeguards that your Lordships’ House has enacted over many years and that mitigate the risks of homelessness for the vast majority of other members of our society cannot simply be disregarded and disapplied, or reduced to the level of statutory guidance, when it comes to this one small section of our community. Where such basic rights are to be lost, it should surely require far more egregious circumstances than the offence of criminal trespass that this clause seeks to create. All these matters would be far better dealt with in a Bill focused on the provision of safe and secure accommodation for all our people, including those whose lifestyle and culture is rooted in travelling. If Part 4 is to remain as a small and ill-fitting part of this very wide-ranging piece of legislation, we have much work to do to make it fit for purpose. I believe that the amendments to which I have spoken form a necessary part of that revision.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak quickly, because I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is wonderful to see such a huge coalition of Peers tabling amendments and speaking on this issue. I imagine that Gypsy and Roma Travellers, peaceful protesters, van-lifers, wild campers and anyone else threatened by this proposed legislation will be glad to see the opposition that is coalescing in your Lordships' House, and I foresee a struggle for the Government on this. Far from criminalising trespass, we should be opening up more land for access to the public and enhancing our enjoyment of our magnificent countryside.

We should remove these clauses completely. It is a nasty section of the Bill. It is discriminatory and dangerous. It will be to the detriment of the reputation of the Government—if it can be any more damaged—if they struggle to keep these clauses in. There are many other useful amendments in this group that we support, but the Government would be very wise to compromise on this issue.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, it may well be that the Government are wise to compromise on this issue. There is a fair amount in Part 4 that has excited controversy in this House, in the other place and among the wider public. But I would not want it to be thought that, because Part 4 and the clauses that may be subjected to these amendments—which have been articulately and powerfully advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and those who have spoken after her—are rightly subject to trenchant criticism, for all the reasons that have been advanced so far, the solution that appears in the amendment paper is necessarily the right one. The proponents of the amendment may well be right, but the solution they put forward to deal with the legitimate problem they have identified may not be. Unquestionably, the number of Traveller sites provided by local authorities is woefully small and may well be one of the great reasons for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers trespassing.

I just want to gently put a slightly different line of thinking. Twenty-five years ago, as a Member of Parliament, I was rung by a very distressed farmer in my constituency, whose land was being trespassed on. I do not know if they were people who come within some statutory definition of Traveller, though they certainly were not Gypsies or Roma. They had a host of trucks, most of which were unlicensed. There must have been about 40 individuals—men, women and children—trespassing with these vehicles. They also had dogs, and these dogs were running wild and disturbing, damaging and, in a few cases, killing my constituent farmer’s sheep. I fully appreciate that requiring one of the conditions in this clause through the amendment to be triggered by the presence or the say-so of a police officer would provide greater certainty that something unlawful was happening. I say unlawful, because that covers the civil aspect of this as well.