Public Order Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kit Malthouse]

The matter of whether and where sex or gender fits into hate crime legislation was, as the hon. Member for Stockton North has said, subject to significant deliberation during consideration in the previous Session, only six weeks ago, of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Before that, it was widely discussed during consideration of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Both Houses had an opportunity to express their views and come to a settled position, and I am afraid that I do not believe matters have changed since then. The hon. Gentleman has cited some distinction between new clause 2 and the previous attempts of the hon. Member for Walthamstow to amend the law in this area, but the essential issue remains the same. I suggest that we should consider hate crime laws in the round, rather than seeking to pick off individual items in a piecemeal way.

Let me deal first with the new clause’s proposed new section 5A to the Public Order Act 1986. To put it into ordinary language, it is an attempt to introduce a new offence of public sexual harassment. I remind Members that during debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act in the previous Session, the Government committed—as the hon. Gentleman has said—to launch a consultation before the summer recess. I can confirm that that remains our intention. We are finalising those plans now, so given that undertaking, I am a bit surprised that the hon. Member for Walthamstow has tabled this new clause, as its effect would be to pre-empt that consultation. I have my views on the intrinsic merits of new clause 2, but it would be fairer and better for us to wait for that consultation to run its course and then draw our conclusions from it.

The other part of the new clause would amend part 3A of the Public Order Act, which deals with what could be described in shorthand as hate speech offences. The hon. Lady has in the past cited recommendation 23 of the Law Commission’s review, which does, in a basic sense, endorse the notion that those offences be extended to cover sex or gender. However, I am afraid that that overlooks a crucial detail: while the Law Commission dedicated just over 10 pages to that extension, it dedicated more than 70 pages to the need for those offences to be fundamentally reformed. The new clause does nothing to contribute to such reform, but root-and-branch change is needed, given that these are hate speech offences. They have the basic potential to significantly chill free speech, and are an area of law in which public consent for change must be carefully considered. The Law Commission noted that those offences represent

“some of the most controversial aspects of hate crime laws.”

There are also issues with the current legislation that we first need to grapple with. The Law Commission noted that the legal defences for people accused of those crimes are currently unclear, and certain terms used in the legislation are legally ambiguous. Most importantly, it tempered all proposals to expand the law with a condition that doing so must be coupled with provisions that make clear what is not criminal. For each characteristic added to the law, those so-called free speech provisions would clarify that merely offensive speech on topics related to such characteristics is not in itself a crime. The Law Commission noted that, particularly in relation to gender identity,

“without such protection, activists would seek to test the limits of the extended offence.”

The new clause does not account for those free speech protections. More broadly, it does nothing to reform the existing provisions as the Law Commission proposes; it only adds to the statute book, whereas the Law Commission suggests repeal and replacement.

In short, any reform of these laws would need to be comprehensive. If it is not, we risk compounding the problems in the law that the Law Commission identified and potentially harming free expression rights. We would essentially be building on very shaky foundations. The Law Commission found that one change is usually interdependent with another. As the hon. Member for Stockton North has said, the Government are actively considering all of the Law Commission’s recommendations, and I can assure the Committee that we are putting the final touches on the Government’s response to all 34 of the Law Commission’s recommendations and will publish that response shortly. I think it would be wiser for the Committee and, indeed, the House to wait for its publication. We do not think it is wise to put the cart before the horse, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Alex Cunningham]

First, I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East cannot change the policy of the Scottish National party on the hoof, but I ask her to think about her sisters in England and Wales. Moreover, I do not think it is necessary for the Government to look at anything that has been brought forward by the Scottish Government or any other organisation, because the evidence on this issue is staring us in the face. We do not need additional evidence to prove that this sort of change in the law is needed.

The Minister mentioned how we have talked about these issues in the past while debating this or that Act, or this or that review. We have talked about it till the cows come home, but nothing has actually happened—there has not yet been any change in the legislation. He said that the Government are still hoping to launch their consultation ahead of the summer recess. On Monday we will be five weeks away from the summer recess. While the Minister says that they are still hoping for this, that does not give him very much time, especially if he does not actually know when it is going to start happening. Now is the time for action. He said that the Law Commission says that the law in this area is unclear. I am inviting the Committee to make it clear today by supporting the new clause. For that reason, I will be pushing it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Public Order Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

With that third reprimand, Chair, I shall wind up my remarks.

[Kit Malthouse]

I think we can take from that that the hon. Gentleman is voting against the clause. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central says, the clause creates a new offence of obstructing major transport works. We heard in strong evidence from the police, High Speed 2 and others why the offence is needed, and why the offence should ensure that all stages of construction and maintenance are protected from disruptive action, including necessary steps prior to construction, such as ecological surveys, and why the offence should also cover the removal of, or interference with, apparatus needed for construction.

I reassure the hon. Lady that “apparatus” is a usual term in legal circles; any strict definition in the Bill might result in the Bill not being future-proof, or in its being too definitive in a way that protesters could find a way around. I am sure that it will not be beyond the wit of courts to interpret what “apparatus” means. When they do, anyone found guilty of the offence will face a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

As with other offences in the Bill, we have provided a reasonable excuse defence. In reference to something the hon. Lady said earlier, there is a defence for trade disputes, so those on strike will have a defence against this kind of offence. As she pointed out, “major transport works” are defined as works that have either been authorised by an Act of Parliament, such as HS2, or by a development consent order under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008, such as the Silvertown tunnel. The definition ensures that transport works of strategic importance in England and Wales are protected.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of human rights. That is a common issue that courts have to address when looking at offences committed by all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances, and it is something we are used to. I confess that I am confused by the hon. Lady’s position. She is encouraging and supportive of national injunctions, which carry unlimited fines and prison terms that depend on the views of the judge at the time. They also provide less protection for the accused, as judges generally require a lower burden of proof in deciding whether the case is proven. Of course, we heard strong evidence last week that injunctions are cumbersome, long-winded, expensive for people to put in place and unpredictable in their efficacy.

Public Order Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

Amendments 29, 46 and 30 target clause 1, which introduces a new offence of locking on. Locking on is an extremely disruptive and often dangerous tactic that can place both protesters and police at extreme risk. It is unacceptable that protesters can use bike locks, glue and an imaginative range of other equipment to inflict disruption on businesses and the public, and the testimony we heard in the oral evidence sessions highlights the need for the Government to act.

Amendment 29 would raise the threshold of the offence by requiring a person’s lock-on to have caused, rather than be capable of causing, serious disruption before they were liable for the offence. That would not account for situations where, for example, a person locks on with intent to cause serious disruption but is quickly removed by the police before serious disruption can be inflicted. If there is to be a deterrent effect, it is important that those who commit acts that could cause serious disruption face appropriate penalties. I do not see the value of accepting the amendment.

Amendment 46 would inadvertently lower the threshold for serious disruption; it would remove the statement that serious disruption is caused by a lock-on only if the disruption applies to two or more individuals or the activities of an organisation. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if someone commits a lock-on that causes serious disruption to one or more person, they may be arrested and charged with the offence. I am not sure the hon. Member had the intention of lowering the threshold of application of this clause.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am looking at subsection (2) which says:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.”

Will the Minister please explain what is meant by that, and who might be caught by the Act? Who would actually have a reasonable excuse? Can he give us an example?

[Kit Malthouse]

The notion of reasonable excuse is well defined in our common law and is adjudged by courts daily, particularly in protest situations. We have seen that over the last few months. Although I assume that the hon. Gentleman seeks some precision in definition, “reasonable excuse” is for the courts to define, and they do so regularly.

Amendment 30 would raise the threshold for the offence of locking on by requiring individuals to have intended their lock-on to cause disruption, rather than having been reckless about that. Recklessness is, however, also a very well understood term in criminal law, and it applies to numerous criminal offences. I do not see the value in removing it from this clause, not least because, as I am sure the hon. Member for North East Fife knows, it is a well-known term in Scottish law and is often used in Scottish courts to adjudge an offence. For the reasons I have set out, I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

That is just nonsense. The hon. Lady will not address the issue of disruption or reasonable excuse. I am sure the police are able to determine and the courts will interpret what is designed in this legislation. She has said rightly that the people we are talking about should go to prison. She said they are committing crimes. The only dispute between the two sides of the Committee is what offence they should be charged with, which is what we seek to provide.

Opposition Members have sought clarity and precision. We have seen that those who are arrested and charged in these circumstances are charged with a range of offences—obstruction of the highway, aggravated trespass, which the hon. Lady referred to, and criminal damage and public nuisance, depending on where the offence occurred and the circumstances. Unfortunately, we have seen situations where, on technicalities, a lack of precision in our ability to deal with the offence has meant that people have got off. For example—

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

[Kit Malthouse]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were protesters who locked on to a printing press in Knowsley in Liverpool. They were charged with aggravated trespass, but avoided conviction because the prosecution was unable to prove where the boundary was between the private and the public land. We are trying to provide precision in that offence area, and that is what this part of the legislation does. Aside from the disruption and anger that they cause, lock ons also waste considerable amounts of police resource and time, with specialist teams often required to attend protest sites to safely remove those who have locked on.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central seems to imply that we should have at-height removal teams on stand-by in all parts of the country 24 hours a day, but it is not realistic for British policing to do that. Some lock ons, particularly those that occur at height, place both the police and protesters at serious risk of injury and even death. For example, protesters at HS2 sites have deployed bamboo structures, necessitating the deployment of specialist teams who are trained to remove them at height at considerable risk to themselves and the protesters they are removing. That is why the Metropolitan Police have asked us to provide them with more powers to tackle that kind of reckless behaviour, and the Government have now responded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

Just a minute.

The clause creates a new offence of locking on that will be committed when an individual causes serious disruption by attaching either themselves or someone else to another individual, an object or to land, or attaching an object to another object or land. Their act must cause or be capable of causing serious disruption to an organisation or two or more individuals, and the person intends or is reckless as to that consequence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Referring only to the act of locking on rather than to the equipment used recognises that protesters deploy a wide range of equipment to lock on, from chains and bike locks to bespoke devices, and ensures that the offence will keep pace with evolving lock-on tactics. The offence can be committed on either public or private land, and that ensures that those who use that tactic in, say, an oil refinery do not evade arrest and prosecution for the offence. Furthermore, new stop and search powers that we will consider shortly will allow the police to take proactive action to prevent locking on in the first place, by seizing items that they believe will be used by protesters to lock on.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister has just referred to oil refineries and private space. Chris Noble said in his evidence

“If we moved more into a private space than currently, we would see that as potentially being incredibly significant for money and opportunity lost in terms of policing communities. Those abstractions would probably quite fundamentally change my local model of policing, in terms of being able to maintain that.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 13, Q17.]

Does the Minister accept that he is putting greater pressure on the police, and certainly on their resources?

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said earlier, I do not accept that because if we get the cocktail of deterrent correct, and get those protesters—

[Alex Cunningham]

It is not going to be a deterrent.

[Kit Malthouse]

He has to see all the clauses in the round. If we get those protesters to think twice about their actions, we hope that they will desist—

[Alex Cunningham]

But they won’t!

[Kit Malthouse]

Or at least they will be incarcerated, such that they will not be able to continue with their protests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Alex Cunningham

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the adequacy of resources for violence reduction units.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse) [V]]

The Home Office is working closely with the Treasury on the future funding of violence reduction units. In February, we announced VRU funding of £35.5 million for the coming year, bringing the total investment to £105.5 million over three financial years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham [V]]

Even when the promised 150 police officers are recruited to the Cleveland force, we will still have 350 fewer police than in 2010, and that in an area where the rate of serious violent crime is among the highest in England. Unlike other areas, Cleveland has not received additional funds to tackle it. The Government are now well known for their bizarre rationale for allocating funding for all manner of things in order to favour areas with Tory MPs, but will the Minister now do the right and mature thing and ensure that Cleveland gets the support that the area desperately needs?

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said in a previous answer, I am meeting, certainly, a Conservative MP to talk about what more we can do to support Cleveland, and I think it is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the experience of his force in that way. We have put significant extra funding into Cleveland police to allow it to uplift the number of police officers. It is benefiting from wider money that we are spending across the whole country on things such as county lines—from which Cleveland sadly suffers, along with other parts of the country—to deal with that particular drugs problem. That is against an overall spending commitment for UK policing that is the largest we have seen for a decade and has been for two successive years, so I do not think anybody could accuse this Government of skimping on investment in the police; quite the reverse. I hope and believe that, as Cleveland police emerges from a difficult period in its history, with a strong chief constable, the hon. Gentleman will start to feel the benefit on his streets quite soon.

Policing (England and Wales)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Alex Cunningham

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service (Kit Malthouse)]

I beg to move,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2020–21 (HC 51), which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

I am proud to be part of a new Government who are delivering on the people’s priorities. The public have demanded an end to the horrific crime and violence that has recently blighted our streets once again. They deserve no less, and it is our duty to deliver the safer towns, villages, cities and country that they want. That means enthusiastically supporting our outstanding police to cut crime. They are our first and finest line of defence against murderous terrorists and ruthless drug gangs and our protection against burglars, robbers and rapists. All hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to their world-renowned courage, sacrifice and professionalism.

As the natural party of law and order, the Conservatives owe the police the resources they need to get their immensely important job done. One of the first acts of this Government was to start recruiting 20,000 new police officers, giving them the strength in numbers they now need, supporting and equipping them with the powers and kit to keep us safe, including lifting restrictions on emergency stop-and-search powers for all forces across England and Wales and, crucially, giving them new and immediate funding to keep our streets safe.

Nothing is more important than protecting the British people, and the settlement will do just that. Our generous offer also recognises the immense challenges that policing faces today. Crime is becoming increasingly complex, serious violence is threatening ever more people, and ruthless thugs are finding new ways to exploit the vulnerable. The scale, range and brutality of the new criminality we face is daunting, but we are rising to the challenge by empowering our police to fight back. This deal will give them the power to take down the criminals and bring those threatening our people and communities to justice.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Cleveland currently receives no serious violence funding, despite having the third highest level of violent crime in the country. The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) appealed to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions last week for more resources, but he was fobbed off. Will the Home Secretary now review it and give Cleveland the funding it needs to tackle serious violence in our area?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of serious violence, which is blighting not only Cleveland but other parts of the country, too. It is obviously a huge focus of my work.

We are giving Cleveland police an extra £10 million this year, which I hope it will use to tackle some of the serious problems there. I have met the chief constable of Cleveland police, who is doing sterling work to move the force from one that has sadly been underperforming to one that can hopefully satisfy the needs and desires of the people of Cleveland.