Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Paddick

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

That is exactly what the noble Lord said. He said that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and gender is not, which is what this amendment addresses.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord. If anyone else wants further clarification, I am sure other noble Lords who have read the Equality Act will come in and back me up.

A particular point that I think my noble and learned friend Lord Judge would have made, were he able to be with us, is that he is clear that this amendment and change to the Sentencing Act would be welcomed by the judiciary, who are often asked to make quite difficult judgments. This would make their ability to do so a great deal easier.

There is another important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned how some police forces around the country voluntarily started recording alleged misogynistic acts, primarily against women. We had a briefing last week, which I attended online, in which two of the police forces involved—Nottinghamshire Police and South Yorkshire Police—gave evidence, several years on, about how effective that was. The thing that came out clearly, which they find very frustrating, is that having amassed this information and passed it on to the Crown Prosecution Service, the way in which the CPS deals with the information and data that has been recorded and given to it as additional evidence when considering or making prosecutions is wholly inconsistent between different offices and areas. One of the virtues of inserting this amendment into the Sentencing Act is that it would make it crystal clear to the Crown Prosecution Service that information must be part of any case that is potentially brought before the judiciary, because this data is required to be considered when thinking about sentencing.

I commend this amendment to the Committee. It is simple, unambiguous and protects everybody.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister and I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation but I am somewhat confused. He cites the evidence given by assistant chief constable Tim Jacques and the three examples that he gave. I will carefully read his evidence in Hansard and what the Minister has said the assistant chief constable said.

From what the Minister was saying, the assistant chief constable was saying why TPIMs were necessary. It was because—I think I am quoting the Minister accurately—there was not sufficient evidence to reach the criminal standard of proof, but the criminal standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”. From the examples that the assistant chief constable gave—as I say, I shall go back and read them carefully—I thought there was definitely evidence that the person may be involved in terrorism on the balance of probabilities. There would therefore be no reason in the three scenarios that the assistant chief constable gave for issuing a TPIM against those three people, on the current evidence.

The Minister has apparently ignored the history of this Parliament and its views on so-called future proofing, when it comes to the deprivation of people’s liberties and the severe imposition of restrictions on people’s human rights, as evidenced by the former Labour Government’s attempts to extend the period that terrorist suspects could be detained by the police without charge. Parliament does not take kindly to, “Well, okay, we accept that there is no evidence that a change in the standard of proof is necessary in this case, but it might be in the future, so we’re doing it just in case”. We cannot deprive people of their liberty to the extent that TPIMs do on the basis of “Well, it might be required in future”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, unfortunately, the imperfection of the current system of remote participation means that one has to put in one’s request to speak “after the Minister” before the Minister has finished speaking. If the Minister in his last few sentences answers the question that you were going to ask, your question becomes obsolete, as is the case here.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I do not have anything to add on the substance of the amendments which my noble friend Lady Hamwee has outlined. However, I would like to go back to something that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford raised in relation to the use of polygraph tests on convicted terrorists who were subject to licence: the right to silence. Quite rightly, the noble and learned Lord who was the Minister at the time said that, because these people would be convicted offenders under licence, they had no right to silence. But TPIM subjects are not convicted offenders on licence; they are unconvicted. That is the whole idea of a TPIM, and so they do have a right to silence. The question for the Minister is: would it be a breach of TPIM conditions, which is a criminal offence for which the person could be sent to prison, if they refuse to participate in a polygraph test or if, in a polygraph test, they refuse to say anything?

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so I call him.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments. Yesterday, in debating the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government declined to include child offenders in the definition of “domestic abuse” because, as the Minister said, the Government did not want to criminalise children. In this Bill, however, they seem to be taking a hard line when it comes to child offenders. What is the difference in approach? Is it because the Government think that domestic abuse is not a serious offence where the public need to be protected but terrorism is?

Knife Crime

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood of Green. Lord Young? I will move on to the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, whatever is happening now, it is clearly not working. Research by the College of Policing shows that high levels of stop and search had barely any effect on violent crime. Instead, it can destroy trust and confidence in the police among the very community that the police need active support and co-operation from if they are to be effective in tackling knife crime. Will the Government consider bringing together police leaders and community leaders to discuss a way forward?

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her promise of an amendment but, regrettably, we have a series of amendments in this group: Amendments 26, 30, 32, 34 and 35. I will briefly put on the record what they are, although they are set out in the Marshalled List.

In addition to the amendment promised, the Government need to think about amendments that aim to prevent street drinking and disorder, particularly late at night, where late-night licences are in operation for on-licence premises in the vicinity of residential premises, as the Minister has suggested she will do. If revellers who have already consumed a lot of alcohol are allowed to purchase alcohol to take away just before premises close, sometimes just before 3 am, there is a danger that they will simply party in nearby streets, to the detriment of local residents. The Minister’s suggested, albeit completely last-minute, promise of an amendment is welcome to that extent, but, whatever the hour, if alcohol is sold in open containers such as pint beer glasses, there is every incentive to consume it in surrounding streets rather than take it home or to the office. If alcohol is sold without restriction as to the kind of container—such as pint beer glasses—in which it can be supplied, as allowed under the Bill, there is a danger of injury either by assault or by accident; for example, were someone to fall while carrying a beer glass. The potential for both assault and accident increases with consumption of alcohol.

At Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tried to allay these concerns by pointing to the provisions in the Bill to review and revoke off-sales if premises were causing problems, and the power under Section 76 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to close down premises. Those provisions are largely unworkable as they require the particular premises responsible for the problem of street drinking, violence and disorder to be identified. In central London, for example, there are hundreds of on-licence premises within short distances of one another, and it would be practically impossible to identify from which premises the revellers causing the problems had bought their alcohol. There are more than 100 premises with post-1 am licences in Soho alone.

Some of those most likely to be affected, represented by the West End Community Network, will support what the Minister has promised because they support an 11 pm end time for off-sales and have not asked for a restriction on when off-sales can begin. Can the Minister explain why the Government have left it until tonight to give even the slightest indication that they are prepared to bring forward their own amendment? Will she agree to meet me and other interested Peers between now and Report to discuss both the Government’s proposed amendments and the other amendments in my name in this group? In the meantime, despite what the Minister has said, I move Amendment 26 in order for her to respond at the end of the debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Several speakers have withdrawn from this part of the proceedings: the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Lord Naseby and Lord Hayward.