Metropolitan Police: Crime and Misconduct
Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing this debate with his very strong historical sense, which we all applaud.
On 17 October this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, published her interim findings on the misconduct system in the Metropolitan Police. Her full report will be published in the new year. I suspect, having heard the testimonies and corroborations today, it will be something of a blockbuster. Her initial report found that the misconduct system is failing officers and the public. She said:
“Cases are taking too long to resolve, allegations are more likely to be dismissed than acted upon, the burden on those raising concerns is too heavy, and there is racial disparity across the system, with White officers dealt with less harshly than Black or Asian officers.”
Since the publication of the findings of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in October, we have had a November report from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary on wider failures in vetting, misconduct, misogyny and racism in the service. That report concluded, to put it simply, that it is
“too easy for the wrong people both to join and to stay in the police”—
a completely damning testimony. The report showed a failure to root out institutional racism; a failure to bar the wrong people from joining the police and root them out, despite multiple incidents of wrongdoing, as other noble Lords have observed; a failure to protect female staff and officers; and a failure to protect the public. This absolutely undermines trust in the police, puts the public at risk, and undermines our model of policing by consent. It is important to recognise the professionalism and service of the majority of our officers, who serve with bravery and integrity, but the actions of others put them in an unsafe environment, and let them down.
We welcome the robust commitments made by the Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, in response to the interim report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. The commissioner promised both immediate and long-term action. Can the Minister give an update on what regular discussions the Home Secretary has had with the commissioner to understand what action has been taken? In my days as a serving Home Office Minister, I had bilaterals with the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, and his immediate superior, so we ought to have some feedback today. Crucially, the inspectorate report found:
“Over the last decade, there have been many warning signs that these systems aren’t working well enough ... Some forces have repeatedly failed to implement recommendations—from us and other bodies”.
Similarly, the noble Baroness’s letter explicitly points out that these problems “are not new”, and that this is not for the Met Commissioner alone to tackle:
“The legal and regulatory framework regarding misconduct should be looked at urgently by the new Home Secretary, together with the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council.”
My noble friend Lady Lawrence made the point very tellingly, I thought, when she said that this is not a new problem—it is pretty obvious that it is not.
Labour set out many months ago the scale of the changes that are needed across our service. The Home Office has been far too passive in its response. The Met Commissioner is right to pledge urgent action, but these issues go far beyond the Met. The Home Secretary should require every police force to urgently provide data and analysis—of the standard set out in the Casey report—on their misconduct systems, so that we know what is happening in every force. Will the Home Secretary make sure that this happens? The Home Secretary also needs to urgently set out a new national framework on standards and misconduct. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti expressed that well. Labour has been clear that we would overhaul misconduct systems, alongside introducing stronger vetting, training and whistleblowing processes, and mandatory national rules that all forces must follow.
The inspectorate report contained 43 recommendations, including for the Home Office. Can the Minister give an update on the urgent action under way to see the recommendations acted on? Following the Casey report, the Home Office announced
“an internal review into the process of police dismissals to raise standards and confidence in policing across England and Wales.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/22; col. 23WS.]
Perhaps the Minister can give us an update on that review. This is a matter of the highest urgency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lexden on securing this important debate.
Public confidence is, as all speakers have noted, a precious commodity for policing. When it is lost or damaged, the impact is significant and profound. Every time a high-profile incident occurs or a scathing report is published, that trust is placed in jeopardy. The truth is that recently this has happened all too often. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lexden that I could and perhaps should have used a much stronger word than “worrying” in my letter to him. However, I also take this opportunity to join the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Bassam, in praising the “heroic, determined” majority—to use Sir Mark’s words, which were echoed by my noble friend Lord Lexden.
Things have to improve. Standards have to be raised and cultures reset. The Home Secretary has been clear that it is vital that the police act to restore trust, return to common-sense “back to basics” policing and treat the public and victims with the respect that they deserve. As the largest police force in England and Wales, with responsibilities extending beyond the vast task of policing and protecting the capital, the Metropolitan Police Service has a central role to play. The Government are committed to working with the Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, and the whole of his organisation. Their task is clear: to get the basics right, drive down and tackle crime, and rebuild public trust.
Many noble Lords have referred to the interim report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. Under the commissioner’s leadership, as I have just said, the Met must get back to basics—and get those basics right—and provide the first-class service expected of it. The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pointed out, contained many disturbing things, including: allegations of discrimination or sexual misconduct; issues of racial disparity, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence; and a lack of confidence internally that such allegations will be taken seriously.
The commissioner has already set out a plan for his first 100 days to, in his words,
“renew policing by consent … to bring more trust, less crime and high standards”
and, obviously, to deal with some of the findings of the Casey report. As part of that process, and going beyond those 100 days, Sir Mark Rowley attends the police performance oversight group, run by HMICFRS. The group brings together system leaders from across policing to offer constructive challenge and practical support to chief constables of engaged forces. I will go into this in some detail, with noble Lords’ indulgence. This body is chaired by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Andy Cooke, who has a clear remit to ensure that forces have realistic and clear improvement plans in place to address the serious concerns about performance that HMICFRS inspections have identified.
Members of this group include His Majesty’s inspectors, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners performance leads, the College of Policing, the Home Office, represented by the policing policy director, the chief constables themselves, of course, and the PCCs or mayors. It is worth restating, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that the primary accountability body for the Metropolitan Police Service remains the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.
Sir Mark attended his first iteration of this group on 13 October and it met again today in order to review some of the performance measures he has outlined. The members scrutinise the improvement plans and provide expert and constructive challenge—one hopes—where needed and regularly review the progress that is made. The mayor and deputy mayor are also invited, as I said, and attend to ensure that they understand the issues and underlying causes of the failures that have been identified and can therefore more effectively monitor, scrutinise and support their chiefs.
The Home Office attends to provide Ministers with the assurance that sufficient and urgent improvement action is under way. Where appropriate, the department considers what additional support it may be able to offer to accelerate progress towards that improvement. Ultimately, officials consider whether the Home Secretary may need advice on using her backstop powers, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the Home Secretary does, of course, meet the police commissioner on a regular basis.
In addition to the police performance oversight group, Sir Mark has also established governance to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Service is challenged and supported on its plans for improvement. These arrangements include the Deputy Mayor and the relevant director-general for public safety from the Home Office—I believe that is called a “turnaround board”.
As for other things the Home Office has done, we have set out clear priorities for all policing through the national crime and policing measures outlined in the Beating Crime Plan, which was published in July 2021. The plan sets out the Government’s strategic approach to cutting crime and restoring confidence in the criminal justice system more generally, but also includes a focus on reducing homicide, serious violence and neighbourhood crime. To allow effective performance management, the Home Office has developed the digital crime and performance pack, which provides published and unpublished data on the Met’s performance relative to other forces and nationally. This has been made available to all chiefs and PCCs.
Most noble Lords raised the subject of police vetting. Following the tragic events surrounding the death of Sarah Everard, the previous Home Secretary commissioned an inspection into police vetting, countercorruption capabilities, misogyny and predatory behaviour. That report, which was published on 2 November, highlighted that policing must do more to safeguard the integrity of the police workforce. Previous inspections also highlighted risks that can arise with poor vetting practice. The NPCC has committed to addressing the recommendations in the report in full. Three recommendations have also been made to the Home Office, and we will be addressing those. Following the HMICFRS report on vetting, misconduct and misogyny, it plans to dip-sample force decision-making on vetting as part of its regular inspections, so that there is ongoing scrutiny of decisions, including forces’ risk appetite.
I was asked whether our unprecedented drive to recruit has perhaps been driving perverse behaviours or causing forces to cut corners. The honest answer is no. Meeting the commitment to recruit the additional 20,000 has not been and will never be at the expense of public safety. The various process improvements and substantial funding provided by the programme means that policing has the tools and ability to recruit in greater volumes while maintaining standards. I go back to the point I just made: the HMICFRS is introducing regular dip-sampling to make sure that that remains the case.
On police misconduct and the discipline system, which of course includes dismissal reviews, the Government announced a review in response to the interim report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the process of police officer dismissals, with the aim of ensuring that the system is fair and effective at removing those who are not fit to serve their communities. The Home Office is responsible for the regulatory framework. This follows significant reforms to the disciplinary system in recent years, including the introduction of independent, legally qualified chairs; public misconduct hearings; the ability to bring misconduct proceedings for former police officers; and the introduction of the police barred list. The Home Office is going to work closely with police partners, including the Metropolitan Police, as part of the review, and the terms of reference will be published in the very near future.
The Government are aware of the commissioner’s concerns around the number of officers not fully deployable but, ultimately, decisions on whether to suspend an officer or place them on restricted duties are a matter for chief constables. I have some data on this for the House. It probably does not entirely accord with Sir Mark’s comments in the newspaper report the other day—it was a snapshot taken at the end of March—but I think it is useful for context.
As of March 2022, the police workforce statistics showed that the Met has 780 officers on recuperative duties—about 2.3% of the workforce, compared with 4.5% nationally. Some 2,718 officers were on restricted or adjusted duties. “Adjusted duties” is worth defining. It is where an officer fails to recover from recuperative duties or another medical issue is identified, but where it is agreed that the officer, with reasonable adjustments, is able to discharge a substantive police role without unreasonable detriment to the overall force effectiveness or resilience, as judged by the chief officer. I am sorry that that is a bit of a mouthful, but it is worth defining. Unfortunately, we do not split the 2,718 into the various categories.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
That is 10% of the Met’s active force. Are any other forces in the UK operating with that degree of handicap?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The average is 4.7%, and it is actually 8% of the Met’s workforce—but I agree that it is a heavier number than we would see nationally. As was referenced earlier, seven officers are currently suspended—0.02% of the workforce, compared with 0.15% nationally. I accept that those numbers are not particularly reassuring: obviously, much needs to be done to fix this problem.
As I said earlier, decisions on whether to suspend an officer or place them on restricted duties are a matter for chief constables. It is also at chief constables’ discretion to place officers on adjusted duties, as the guidance sets out fairly clearly. Where officers’ performance is unsatisfactory or they commit an act of gross incompetence, there are existing mechanisms to be able to dismiss them from the force. The Home Office will continue to work with forces to ensure that there is an effective regulatory framework in place. Whether we end up with legislative change or not, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Blair, I really cannot predict.
My noble friend Lord Lexden referred to Operation Midland, which we have discussed many times in this House. As ever, his points were well made. On the remarks made by the former Home Secretary that he referred to, in which she stated that profound concerns existed about the handling of this operation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct responded to criticism of its handling in a letter sent to Sir Richard Henriques on 31 March 2021. That is available on the government website. The IOPC publishes further information on its performance and plans on its website. As announced by the former Home Secretary on 15 June 2021, an independent review of the IOPC—another review, I am afraid—is due to start this year. This will consider the organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency, including its decision-making processes.
I regret that I am running out of time. In closing, I repeat my earlier thanks to my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate. I am grateful too to all other noble Lords who have contributed today. These are issues of the utmost importance, not only in relation to the way our capital city is policed but for British policing as a whole. The Metropolitan Police has a unique status within our policing system. Under the commissioner’s leadership, the force must step up to the task of driving down crime, upholding high standards and securing public trust. I commend the work that Sir Mark Rowley has done so far and look forward to seeing the rest of it concluded successfully. That is what the Government expect, and we will continue challenging the Met and the whole of policing to achieve it.
Scammers
Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have slightly different figures for the number of victims who were reimbursed. I am told that up to the year ending June 2022, 71% of victims got fully reimbursed. On the code to which the noble Lord referred, in 2021 the Payment Systems Regulator consulted on further measures to combat APP fraud. It proposed that all payment service providers must reimburse victims of APP scams where the victim is found not to have been grossly negligent. It is also worth pointing out some other legislative activity. In November 2021, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced that the Government would remove any legislative barriers through the Financial Services and Markets Bill to enable the regulator to act to make reimbursement mandatory. That Bill is currently in Committee, and the PSR is currently consulting further on the mechanism for reimbursement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this really is not good enough. The National Audit Office issued a helpful report five years ago on fraudulent scammers, which has been ignored by successive Ministers and Secretaries of State. This second devastating report, which my noble friend Lord Browne referred to, has found “limited” action taken by the Home Office to tackle a crime that is profoundly impactful on nearly 4 million people every year at a cost of £4.7 billion. Fewer than 5,000 prosecutions were launched last year. Many of the victims of this terrible crime are elderly. When is the Home Office going to re-examine its priorities and come up with a proper and effective plan that genuinely protects people from scammers, which our party and the National Audit Office have been demanding for the past seven years?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have already said, the National Audit Office report is going to inform the new fraud strategy. I reassure noble Lords that this is taken incredibly seriously. Alongside the fraud strategy that is due to be published shortly, we are providing more than £10 million to the City of London Police to upgrade Action Fraud, which has come under some criticism in the past. Next year, a new user-friendly and accessible reporting tool and website will be launched, offering an improved experience for victims and simpler pathways to access further support and guidance. Overall, £400 million is being allocated to economic crime, of which £100 million is being spent on the prevention of fraud.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, but I want to shift the focus back to DCMS because we now, happily, have the DCMS Minister in front of us. The noble Lord has a tough gig in this Session with a near-record number of Bills to field badged under the DCMS banner. I give him fair warning that there is such a thing as legislative overload. When I completed my two-year stint at the Home Office, I had rather a nice letter from the Prime Minister congratulating me on taking through 19 Bills—apparently it was a record at the time. I warn the noble Lord that it comes at a cost, and I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, nodding her head at that.
My focus today is on three measures in the DCMS package that have caught my eye: the fan-led review, Channel 4 privatisation and online safety. The first, the football fan-led review, which brings forward a regulator, is much welcomed by all sides of your Lordships’ Chamber. It is long overdue and I am delighted to see it in the gracious Speech. Our concern will of course be the detail. Will the regulator be genuinely independent? What will its powers be? How will the fit and proper persons test be framed? Will it screen out the Abramovichs, Oystons and Ashleys of this world? Will the office be capable of protecting our rich heritage of clubs and stop the Burys of the football world going out of business?
In the mid-1990s Brighton and Hove Albion, my club, was bankrupted by the owner of Focus DIY. It was forced to sell the ground, obliged to play home games 70 miles away in Gillingham and rescued only by a combination of the council that I led, the fan-led campaign and inspiring individuals such as Martin Perry and Dick Knight. Now, of course, we play in the Premiership and regularly beat teams such as Man U. We needed a regulator back then and we certainly need one now. Over the last 30 years a whole litany of clubs have faced bankruptcy, been pushed out of business and now find themselves in the lower leagues. We could have done with a regulator then. It took years to sort out.
The Online Safety Bill has also had too little attention from the Government in the recent past and has been too long coming, but it is here now. Some say that the Bill we will get this Session is too weak; others say it goes too far. My noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lord Knight spent a long time on the Joint Committee trying to get it right. My hope is that the redraft has not been filleted by the government lawyers to appease the big tech companies.
For our part on the Labour Benches, we will constructively engage to improve the Bill where weak and seek to achieve the right balance. We will follow the duty of care principles the Bill is supposed to enshrine. I agree with my honourable friend in another place, Lucy Powell, who argues for a systems-based approach on outcomes, which, as she says, should
“solve the free speech question”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/22; col. 102.]
and enable the strengthening of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will commit to following that course.
Finally, I come to the cultural vandalism on an epic scale that is the Channel 4 privatisation. This measure has attracted criticism from businesses far and wide across the media world and its supply chain. It threatens, as others have said, the whole eco-structure of broadcast media. It makes a mockery of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, of which Channel 4 is both an active proponent and an important part, and will do great harm to the creative industries in the UK, which, as most of us acknowledge, are one of our nation’s great success stories.
On these Benches we will simply oppose that part of the media Bill. In bringing this forward, the Government have ignored the findings of their own consultation, ignored the cultural sector as a whole and simply chosen to follow an ideologically driven policy. One report suggests that, if this unpopular privatisation proceeds, 1,300 jobs and 140 companies could be at risk. Who believes the Government’s bribe that they will reinvest the proceeds of the sale of C4 back in the sector?
Government Ministers say the move is designed to secure the future of the channel, but for whom? They say it will allow it to compete in the global media market with the likes of Netflix. At this stage in the market’s development, that is not necessarily the best look. Channel 4 is not looking to compete with Netflix; it is a stand-alone success of its own, and profitable too. We should value it for what it is, just as we do the BBC. This privatisation is solution looking for a problem, when actually the problem is the solution. It is without even manifesto cover and has been rejected by three Conservative Prime Ministers. We in this House would do well to follow their lead. It is a measure without friends.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton ExcerptsMonday 10th January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (10 Jan 2022)
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm the impact these amendments will have on homophobic abuse of soccer players? I think he mentioned it once. Tom Daley on Channel 4’s “Alternative Christmas Message” talked about the fact that no professional footballers in the UK have publicly said they are gay: fear of public reaction is probably a big part of the reason why. In fact, globally, it is my understanding that only one professional soccer player has come out as gay, and he plays in Australia.
People have shied away from a hierarchy of diversity, but I have always believed that racism is a bigger problem than homophobia: some people can hide their sexuality, but few people of colour can hide their race. Having said that, people can hide their religious beliefs; there are many white Muslims, for example. These amendments cover religion but not, at least immediately obviously, sexuality. Racism is still a huge problem, and these amendments are welcome, but where is the clear and unambiguous message in these amendments that homophobic abuse directed at football players is just as unacceptable as racism and Islamophobia? It is not clear to me.
Even the Government’s explanatory statement for these amendments refers to
“certain offences relating to race or religion and certain online hate offences.”
If I am having to search the many and various pieces of legislation mentioned in these amendments to satisfy myself that people like me are covered, then these amendments do not send a clear and unambiguous message that homophobic abuse is as unacceptable as racism and Islamophobia. The Law Commission in its recent report on hate crime identifies the need to place sexual and gender diversity hatred on the same footing as race hatred, so what assurances can the Minister give in this case? I do not want perfection to be the enemy of the good, and there will still be an opportunity to provide clarification at Third Reading, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Government for bringing forward these amendments. They very much fulfil the objectives that I set out in moving my amendments in Committee. Imagine my slight surprise when I received an email shortly before Christmas from one of the officials telling me about this, though it had been suggested to me, and that the announcement was going to be made on Boxing Day—not a day traditionally used for parliamentary consideration. But I was pleased to hear that the Government were going to bring forward the amendments. I offered at one stage to co-sign them, but that seems to have got lost in the mists.
I am not entirely convinced that we would have seen these amendments if we had not brought them forward in Committee and threatened the Government with, I suspect, the possibility of a defeat on them. It has taken the Government too long to get to this point. Boris Johnson himself mentioned it back in July, but we have been campaigning on this issue for some years, and these amendments are long overdue.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I too would like to see some clarification as to whether these amendments will cover homophobic abuse. It is fair to say that many of the football clubs are well ahead of the Government on this already. I know that my own football club, Brighton & Hove Albion, has long taken the view that homophobic abuse is unacceptable and made that very clear, not just in its programmes and publicity but in its action. That is to be welcomed. Many clubs have adopted that approach and now take pride in supporting gay footballers and ensuring that people do not get abused in that way at games. That is to be welcomed, but we need some legislative clarity.
I have one further point that I wish to pursue with the Government. The Bill is an opportunity to cover online abuse wherever it manifests. Although football understandably is a natural focus for this because, let us face it, that is where a lot of racist abuse has been channelled over the last few years, particularly last summer, I challenge the Government to bring forward a further amendment which covers other sports. We are all very conscious and aware of the racism that is there in other sports and sporting activities, and the abuse that many black and minority-ethnic cricketers, in particular, have suffered.
We should try to deal with the whole package, and it would be a good challenge for the Government to meet to bring forward amendments that we and, I am sure, other Members of your Lordships’ House would support at Third Reading. We would be more than happy to use our drafting talents to make sure it happened. It would clarify once and for all the position for all sports men and women across the UK, and it would send a strong and important message that this is just not acceptable behaviour in any shape or form in any sporting arena or in any sport.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in seeking clarity about homophobic abuse; that is really important. I would like the Government to bring forward further amendments to cover other sports at Third Reading. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of the Government they have clever and cunning draftspeople at their beck and call and there are plenty of us in this House who would want to support that and sign up to that agenda.
I place on record my thanks to the Minister and Ministers generally, to the Home Office staff who have supported them, and to our own staff in our Labour Lords team who did the original drafting, because this is an important step forward and we should recognise that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments and thank the Government for their clarity; there were some other sections about which we were not sure in terms of their language. Again, sorry to sound as though I am stuck in a groove: in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and its recommendations there is a definition of a racist incident and a homophobic incident. Parliament, in the other place, accepted all 70 recommendations. If you want to find how to phrase what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is talking about, it is already there in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and the recommendations that we made.
The thing about the law is that it must be predictable, easy to understand and not shrouded in mystery. I support the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The Government need to be clear about this and the language because the other place accepted all 70 recommendations. It is in there, and it would be a mistake not to be very clear about the whole question of these homophobic incidents and the abuse that some people have suffered. I would support the Government in finding that language. They could put in similar words about what they have actually done about racism.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I will have to write to him to clarify that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and his agreement to take that away. For our part, we would very much welcome a discussion on that with him and his officials, if that is at all possible. We are some way off from the Third Reading, and, clearly, we would be in a position to bring forward an amendment if that would help.
It would be for the good if we could have some cross-party agreement on this, because it is an issue on which we can have a shared view. That shared view adds extra emphasis and import to the progress that we make. We would very much welcome the Minister facilitating that discussion, and obviously we would be delighted if the Government were to concede and bring forward amendments which cover all other sports as well.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton ExcerptsWednesday 24th November 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (22 Nov 2021)
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 292Q in my name. Before I speak to it, I will refer to the other amendments in the group, particularly Amendment 292S in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam. It deals with an incredibly important issue: he seeks to change the relevant offences for footballing banning orders. I think that we all remember the horror when we witnessed the racism that English football players, in particular, experienced at the end of the Euros. We all condemned it and thought it disgraceful. I say this to my noble friend: I hope that the football world and the public more generally hear about the amendment that he has tabled, because sometimes they think that we do not get the world in which they live. We abhor the racism that our professional footballers, in this instance, face, as well as the racism often experienced in many other spheres of life. It is totally and utterly unacceptable to everybody in this House and beyond. My noble friend’s amendment is very good. I know that it is late in the evening, but it is an important amendment and I wish him well with it.
I wish my noble friend Lord Faulkner well with his Amendment 229U. Including it in this group is an interesting selection—having scrap metal included here makes for an interesting group of amendments. Can the Minister perhaps explain how that happened? I think that we would all be interested in the answer.
To move on, the purpose of Amendment 292Q in my name is to express
“the need for fast-tracked exclusion zones around schools, in response to anti-vaccination protesters targeting schools, pupils and teachers.”
As the Minister will know, this builds on the public space protection orders already legislated for in Section 61 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, so the principle of the need for public space protection orders has already been agreed by the Government. However, as I pointed out with reference to certain figures, this amendment seeks particularly to say, regarding the way in which those orders operate under the law at the moment, that they need to be fast-tracked. I know that the Minister will have read the various parts of the new clause that we are proposing, but it is the fast-tracking that is essential. Whatever the rights and wrong of the existing legislation, it simply cannot be applied with the speed necessary to allow school leadership, the police and local authorities to deal with some of the many problems that they have had.
In moving this amendment, I thank my friend Peter Kyle MP for his work. As the Minister will probably be aware, in Westminster Hall in the last day or two he has highlighted the particular problems that schools in his constituency in Brighton have faced and the need for something to be done about it. In particular, he talked about anti-vax protesters outside schools spreading dangerous information to children—something that we all agree is utterly unacceptable.
I looked for figures, and the ones I managed to find are from the Association of School and College Leaders. I think noble Lords will forgive me for a minute if I read out some of the statistics, because they are pretty shocking; I was shocked by them. According to the ASCL survey, nearly eight in 10 schools had been targeted by anti-vax protestors. I add that most of that was by email, but the fact remains that they have been targeted. Protests outside schools have been reported in Glasgow, Cardiff, London, Telford, Leicester, Manchester and Dorset, so this problem has been experienced right across the country. I ask noble Lords to imagine for a moment the teachers and members of staff at these schools, the parents and grandparents of children attending them, and the children themselves. Some of these children are very young—admittedly, many of them are in secondary school—and are having to deal with some of the misinformation and protests going on in the immediate vicinity of their schools.
The Association of School and College Leaders found that 420 schools had experienced protests. Of 526 responses from schools eligible for the Covid vaccination programme for 12 to 15 year-olds, 13% had reported seeing demonstrators outside their school, in the immediate vicinity. I think there is a point to be made about it being in the immediate vicinity. Eighteen schools said that demonstrators had gained access to the school, which is obviously particularly worrying, and 20 had received communications threatening harm.
What my amendment seeks to do is to say that this is unacceptable. There is legislation available, but it has taken too long for that legislation to be enacted. Even where the police, school leaders and local authorities want to take action to deal with this problem, it is taking far too long, and the children, parents and pupils at those schools are experiencing that difficulty.
I finish by saying that many media outlets have started to pursue this campaign, particularly the Mail, but it is sickening that anti-vax protestors in protests outside schools are spreading dangerous misinformation to children. The uptake of the vaccine among children is far too low, and the Government would wish to accelerate the rollout. Everything must be done to get those who are eligible to be vaccinated as soon as possible—and who knows where that will go in the coming weeks and months as the Government roll out their vaccination and booster programmes, wherever that takes us.
We are facing a public health emergency, and the last thing we need is for our children to be targeted by the irresponsible activities of a few people. I think the Government need to act to fast-track the existing legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Coaker for congratulating me on my amendment before I have spoken to it. I think that is a bit of a rarity in your Lordships’ House, but I will take it from wherever it comes.
My Amendment 292S covers racism in football and, in particular, online offences. As the explanatory statement to the amendment says:
“This would add online offences, specifically posting racist abuse aimed at football players, to the list of relevant offences for which a football banning order can be made.”
It would add offences under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989, which controls banning orders, where these messages are sent to a member of a football team and involve racial hatred.
In speaking to my amendment, I should enter a bit of history. Back in 2000, I was the Home Office Minister, sat where the noble Lord is this evening, and I had to introduce to this House what was effectively emergency legislation covering football-disorder related offences. The banning order regime that it brought in was aimed at dealing with violent and disorderly behaviour and racist activity at football matches. This was on the back of extremely poor behaviour by England football fans at the Euro 2000 competition. Such was the international outrage at the behaviour of our own fans, I believe that if we as a Labour Government had failed to act firmly, England would have been banned from competing in the subsequent World Cup in 2002.
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—
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.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Before the noble Lord moves on to the next amendment, thinking back to 2000, the football riots took place in Charleroi and elsewhere, involving some 600 or 700 England fans, and within two weeks the Labour Government swiftly moved to introduce legislation that has been effective for the last 21 years. I do not quite understand how a Government with a majority of this size have failed to act on the promise made by the Prime Minister on 14 July. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation, as the noble Lord gave voice to in his response. Why have they not been able to find the opportunity to put that promise, made very clearly in the House of Commons, into effect? They could do so in this legislation now. We will help the Government to do it by helping them to perfect the amendment and get it right. This is a serious matter. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made that point very well. It is time that the Government fulfil some of the promises that they make. This is a relatively simple one to do.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I reiterate that the Government agree with the noble Lord. I can only repeat what I said earlier: we are working at pace and I commit to updating him before we get to Report. I hope that there will be a helpful outcome.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has Amendment 292U on metal theft. This is an important subject and one that my noble friend Lady Williams recently discussed with the noble Lord, as he acknowledged. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his contribution and his examples. I shall say a bit more about that meeting in a moment.
The Government recognise the impact of metal theft on infrastructure companies, including theft of cable from railway projects, construction companies and solar farms, as well as from heritage and community assets such as churches. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 was introduced to tackle the metal theft that was affecting many people’s day-to-day lives at that time. Under Section 12 of the 2013 Act, it is already an offence for a scrap metal dealer to pay for scrap metal using cash. The 2013 Act also places requirements on scrap metal dealers to hold a licence, verify the identity of those supplying scrap metal and retain records of metal bought and sold. These elements, together with powers for the police and local authorities to enter and inspect the premises of scrap metal dealers, make the Act an effective tool to tackle the sale of stolen metal.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to extend the provisions in the 2013 Act to make it an offence for anyone to sell scrap metal for cash. Although I understand the intention behind this amendment and the desire to have additional powers to tackle those who see metal theft as a profitable crime, the Government do not consider this amendment to be needed. The amendment would broaden the remit of the 2013 Act beyond the responsibilities placed on scrap metal dealers. Should an offender encourage, assist or incite the cash purchase of stolen metal by a scrap metal dealer, they could be found guilty of an inchoate offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.
I will set this in a broader context. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Williams had a very productive meeting, as he acknowledged, on 9 November to discuss this important subject. They were joined by members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Metal, Stone and Heritage Crime: the noble Lord, Lord Birt, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and Andrew Selous MP, together with a representative from the British Metals Recycling Association. I understand that it was a constructive discussion and I hope that the noble Lord was left in no doubt as to the seriousness with which the Government view this crime.
At that meeting it was agreed that enforcement of the 2013 Act is key to tackling metal theft. The Government are committed to supporting partners to increase the enforcement of the Act. The Home Office provided £177,000 of seed-corn funding in the last financial year to establish the National Infrastructure Crime Reduction Partnership. The partnership is spearheaded by the British Transport Police and was set up to better co-ordinate police forces and other agencies to tackle metal theft from rail, telecoms and utilities companies.
At the meeting on 9 November, concerns were also raised about the disparity between metal theft figures published by the Office for National Statistics and figures held on the police national computer. We are looking into this and my noble friend Lady Williams—who, by the way, expressed to me that she would have liked to answer the noble Lord’s amendment—will write to the noble Lord when we have clarification on this. However, let me be clear: no one is trying to play down the problem or argue that statistics somehow show things are not as bad as some suggest.
The all-party parliamentary group agreed to provide the Government with a paper setting out its recommendations for tackling metal theft. My noble friend looks forward to receiving this and we will give it careful consideration. The right reverend Prelate and Andrew Selous, who is a Church Commissioner, agreed to see what more could be done to gather data and intelligence about thefts from churches, particularly of lead roofs. That is something that I welcome. I am sure that your Lordships all share my concern about these attacks on our heritage and recognise the particular vulnerability of churches, many of which are in isolated and remote areas. We look forward to continuing to work with the noble Lord and others who have contributed to the work of this all-party group. I hope that he is in no doubt of our commitment in this respect.
In the light of my comments and the undertaking to give sympathetic further consideration to Amendment 292S, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw his amendment.