Security Threat to UK-based Journalists
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the Minister for the Statement. We are all horrified that Iran International felt the need to close its offices in the UK, and I look forward to hearing his answers to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
For many years, I worked as a journalist. Many of my closest friends are journalists. The closest is no longer with us: Marie Colvin—brave, wonderful Marie, targeted by the Assad regime and murdered in Homs, Syria, in 2012. Tomorrow is the anniversary of her death. Now we see this targeting of those who seek to hold power to account happening on our own British soil. It is unacceptable, so I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that freedom of the press is sacrosanct.
As with the Government’s robust response to the Iranian Government’s behaviour towards Iran International, will they be equally robust over Iran’s behaviour toward BBC Persian and the persecution of BBC Persian staff and family members living in Iran? What they are being subjected to is appalling.
Finally, these cumulative events underline just how important our free press is, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. It is vital that, in countries like Iran, citizens have access to our wonderful BBC World Service. Consequently, does the Minister not agree that it must be properly funded and not forced into making the kinds of cuts that it has had to make recently?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their remarks, and I start mine by stating, as my right honourable friend in the other place said, that
“The United Kingdom is committed to defending our freedoms—values that define us and make us who we are—and none is more fundamental than freedom of the press.”
So I entirely echo their opinions on that subject.
As to the specific circumstances of the people in London who have been targeted by another state, the police and the security services work night and day to keep people safe, and that is what they have been doing here. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the statement this weekend from Matt Jukes, the head of counterterrorism policing at the Metropolitan Police. He set out the scale of their operations and the protective security in relation to this case to date, and said that
“The advice to relocate has not been given lightly”
but is the result of continued investigations and dedicated work to keep people safe. We thank them for that. As my right honourable friend the Security Minister said yesterday, Iran International has praised the police for their efforts, and this commendation speaks volumes.
Of course we take these attacks on a free press seriously. That is why we are doing this. As to the allusion to why we have allowed this to happen and what representations have been made to the Iranian authorities, the Foreign Secretary called the Iranian chargé d’affaires in for a meeting yesterday and we will be looking at further sanctions for those connected to the Iranian regime. There are around 300 sanctions in place against Iran, including the entirety of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Alongside international partners, we sanctioned another eight individuals yesterday. My right honourable friend in the other place referred to speaking to international partners in Germany, France and the US yesterday, so this effort goes across Governments. We are not the only ones to suffer from this.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what the Government are doing to disrupt Iran’s use of serious organised crime groups. He will appreciate that I cannot go into operational details—I am sure that he does not expect me to—and I appreciate that he still has to ask the question. It is concerning; it demonstrates the poor state and quality of Iranian intelligence services that they are able to conduct their activities only by resorting to criminals—small comfort. This concern does not relate only to the UK. As I just referenced, we are working closely with international partners, which face very similar threats, and a lot of other international organisations to identify, degrade and disrupt these networks to the best of our ability. We make full use of the range of powers available. I also commend to all noble Lords present the National Security Bill, which is passing through the House at the moment.
I referenced sanctions earlier. The Government are putting an enormous amount of pressure on the Iranian regime. I have a long list of sanctions, which I could go through, but I will leave it at the headline number of 300. There are a lot more that we could do but, as I said and we have discussed in many other debates on these sorts of subjects, we work with international partners and there is no point in doing this in isolation.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about proscription of the IRGC. We keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, but we do not comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. To go into more detail, we regularly assess the impact of the IRGC and its continued destabilising activity, particularly in the Middle East. As I have said, the UK maintains a range of sanctions that work to constrain its activities and we support the enforcement of UN prohibitions on the proliferation of weapons to non-state actors in the region, including to the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen—both of which are proscribed organisations.
On the ISC question, we are supplying it with as much as we can. As we talked about in December, my right honourable friend in the other place has set up a defending democracy task force. He has promised to come forward with some updates on that soon, as well as it being part of the strategic review, so we can look forward to that.
I have spoken long enough and hope I have answered the questions raised. I will conclude with some of the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place, who put it very well. I have not quite concluded, because I have forgotten to answer the noble Baroness’s question, but I will do so in finishing. My right honourable friend put this very well and, more importantly, I know that all noble Lords share these sentiments. He said:
“To the brave Iranian journalists and community here in the United Kingdom, I say that this country, this Government and this whole House stands in solidarity with you against the oppression that you face.”
He went on to say:
“let me directly address the Iranian regime, which is responsible for these heinous crimes. We will hold you to account for your blatant violation of our laws and values.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/23; cols. 49-51.]
As a postscript, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from the Government. Decisions over how its services are delivered are a matter for the BBC. The World Service is transforming to a digital-first service. Internet usage has tripled globally over the last 10 years, and a reported 84% of Iranians were using the internet in 2020. Only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly Iranian audience of 13.8 million get BBC news solely via radio; 99% use BBC Persian on TV and online. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer of a made-for-television series about the war in Ukraine. Like other noble Lords, I am appalled to hear about the many kidnap and death threats against journalists in this country for holding the Iranian regime to account. I gather that there were many more than 15. They include journalists in the BBC Persian service, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, said, who have also been sanctioned and their families in Iran threatened. What plans do the British Government have to continue to raise the issue at the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to bring together an international coalition to put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop these attacks?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s question is really more for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will make sure that it is reflected back to my colleagues in that department. I would imagine that extensive conversations and negotiations are ongoing on this subject.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s robust declaration of protection for UK-based journalists from threats from overseas, but I am puzzled by their equally robust refusal to protect UK journalists from threats via abuse of our own legal system through the use of SLAPPs by parties overseas, despite cross-party support to do something about it. Can the Minister explain this apparent and ugly contradiction to the House?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, these debates have been rehearsed at considerable length over the past few weeks on the National Security Bill. I have nothing more to add. Obviously, SLAPPs are outside the scope of that Bill, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject frequently.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too have great concerns about the use of our courts to silence journalists who are speaking truth to power, so I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. But I also congratulate the Government for taking a strong stance on Iran. What happens to journalists also happens to lawyers, and it is a source of great concern to the International Bar Association and its Institute of Human Rights, which I direct.
We run a media freedom project that was initiated by the UK Government, and a growing source of alarm and concern is transnational oppression—the long arm of some of the worst states, the totalitarian states and those that are only too ready to kill, as well as to put journalists and human rights advocates in fear. We are seeing a greater expansion of that reach and I would like to ask whether that is being addressed inside government and the security services. We saw it in the murder of Khashoggi and in going after journalists internally and abroad. It is the same for lawyers; those who are confronting the Chinese are themselves having problems. Are we taking active steps to deal with that transnational oppression?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and, yes, we are. The security services are very alive to these threats. She could have mentioned a number of others from recent memory, such as Litvinenko, Skripal and so on. We are very aware of the scope and scale of the emerging threats that she so eloquently described. I will not comment on the operational side of this, but I am very reassured that the security services are on top of it.
Lord Godson (Con)
I join in the general approval of the Statement across all sections of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Security Minister in the Commons talking about the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The Security Minister made specific reference to his instruction to the Home Office, in his words
“to lead work on countering Iranian state threats, making use of the full breadth and expertise of the Government and our extraordinary and courageous police, security and intelligence agencies.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/23; col. 50.]
Would the Minister care to say a little more about that and give a little more detail about what that might entail? I am thinking particularly of a whole-of-government approach—not merely the Home Office, vital though that is—and how that can be built upon. While, as he says, he does not talk about the specifics around this particular proscription, would he care to give, in the widest policy sense, some of the general issues policy-wise and legally that might constitute barriers to entry in terms of proscribing the IRGC?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As to that latter point, I really cannot go any further, I am afraid. It is subject to ongoing scrutiny and I know there is a significant amount of advice currently being considered in that regard. I can say no more.
The first part of my noble friend’s question is, of course, completely right. Any activity in government has to be across agencies and across departments. Part of the reason why these threats are evolving, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just pointed out, is because the nature of the threat is evolving and the nature of the reporting of the threats is evolving. The world is changing very rapidly. So it would be foolish for just the Home Office to be looking at this when there are obviously online aspects and Treasury aspects. These are things that we deal with in this House all the time; they come together periodically in economic crime Bills and in national security Bills. I hope noble Lords will continue to support the passage of those Bills because they will target this sort of activity.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, this situation is something of a national embarrassment, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. What message does this send out to the rest of the world? I would like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions about the new studio for Iran International because he said next to nothing about it. Could he give us some indication of the timing of the development of the new studio, when it is likely to be completed, the cost and who will pick that up? Will we, as a nation, be contributing anything to the cost of the new studio? Then there is the whole question of the siting of the new studio. Will it be on a separate site, or will it be part of an existing, well-defended site—perhaps an existing military site or similar? Really, nothing has been said about this and I would be grateful if some indication could be given about the site, timing and cost.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I reject the premise of the question, that this is in some way a national embarrassment. I think this is actually a robust response by the counterterrorist police to an evolving situation, as I tried to explain earlier. I cannot go into details on the new site—I think it would be unwise to do so, for lots of security reasons—and I am afraid I have no details about the costs and who will be paying for it. The thing I can say about the existing site is that the police decided, having responded to a large number of threats, that it was in a difficult place to secure. Therefore, something needed to be done sooner rather than later. I think they should be praised for that.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, can I take the question of Iran one step further? Does the Statement not make the timing of the closure of the BBC Persian service entirely inappropriate—all for a paltry £800,000 a year? Our foreign policy and strategy should deem this an entirely illogical move. Support for the people of Iran is paramount at this critical time, and closure will send conflicting messages about the support we have in this country for the uprising. Will the Minister take this message back to his colleagues at the Treasury to give clear approval of keeping this critical service open?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Viscount that the service is indeed critical. I actually delivered some of the figures earlier on access by an Iranian audience to the BBC. Some 99%, as I said earlier, use BBC Persian on TV and online. Only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly Iranian audience of 13.8 million people get BBC news solely via radio. I agree that the BBC World Service does play a vital role in delivering high-quality, accurate and impartial broadcasting across the globe. The FCDO is providing the BBC World Service with over £94 million annually for the next three years; it supports services in 12 languages and improvements to key services in Arabic, Russian and English. That is in addition to nearly £470 million that we have already provided though the World2020 Programme since 2016. To say it has been closed is very much an overstatement.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, over the weekend I read two stories in the media. The first was that fundamentalist clerics in Iran—a regime inspired by a warped perversion of Islam—had been plotting to murder Israelis and also British Jews here in the UK, as confirmed by the Minister in the other place yesterday. The second story was about the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi, the vision of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, where on the same site a church, a mosque and a synagogue of equal size and equal beauty—designed by a British architect, Sir David Adjaye—have been formally opened. It is remarkable, I would suggest, that religion—in this case, the same religion—can be used to inspire murder or to promote dialogue and tolerance. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government will do all they can to maintain vigilance and protection against the former, while equally doing all they can to support and promote the latter?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. He is absolutely right: between 2020 and 2022, Iran did try to collect intelligence on UK-based Israeli and Jewish individuals. We believe this information was preparation for future lethal operations. My right honourable friend in the other place highlighted that Iran has not just targeted Jews and Israelis; it has targeted LGBTQ communities, Muslims and Christians. That is not just a flagrant betrayal of the principles of international law but, as my right honourable friend also said, a betrayal of ancient principles of Persian culture. So I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should be vigilant and on guard as to the former. I absolutely salute the efforts that he described in Abu Dhabi. Anything that promotes dialogue and tolerance between religions, or indeed peoples, has to be applauded and encouraged. I will certainly encourage the Government to do that very volubly.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, this Statement is a trenchant response and I congratulate the Government on it. However, perhaps I could follow up on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and the Minister’s reply. I want to stress the extraordinary soft power represented by what the BBC is doing. The Minister was right to mention the number. In fact, the Persian service reaches 22 million globally, 13 million in Iran. I think there are fears, despite the reassurances, that it will be hard to keep up the level of broadcasting that I am sure, in many ways, the Minister and the Government would like to see. It is an extraordinary soft power. The Minister mentioned just now the cultural importance of Persia—I could not agree more. It is that communication of culture—our culture to them and their culture to us—that is so important. I still like to believe, in these awful days, even with Russia, that it is through culture and through sport that we can sometimes find a means of speaking to each other.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think the noble Lord has just, very aptly, described common humanity, and of course I completely agree. I would be straying well beyond my remit if I was to go into soft power and all its uses. Of course, speaking personally, I completely agree. As I pointed out, the FCDO is providing the World Service with significant amounts of funding. Reading between the lines, or perhaps not, I would imagine that indicates that it also believes in the soft power aspect of the World Service. For the reasons that the noble Lord describes, how can we not?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, this is clearly a very serious situation and I would not want to detract from that at all, but one thing my noble friend has not mentioned today is the Government’s national action plan for the safety of journalists. In light of this situation, are the Government looking to see whether that needs to be reviewed in any way? Also, what, if any, engagement might Ministers have with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I believe was established just a few years ago? It seems quite relevant if the threats to journalists we are seeing now are growing in such a serious fashion. Alongside that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, there are other kinds of threats being made and actions being taken against journalists, at a rate we perhaps have not seen in the past.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I am afraid that I am not personally able to answer it, so I will make sure that she is written to. I think DCMS takes the lead on this area but I will make further investigations and make sure she is fully informed.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for coming back. I will look closely at the response— I recognise that not all these issues are necessarily the Minister’s bag, as it were—but, on the question of Iran, he needs to be aware, as I am sure the Government and the Minister sitting next to him are, that the ability of people in Iran to receive the World Service is restricted because of the lack of internet and other such issues. The ability of people in the interior of Iran to get the message from the BBC Persian service needs to be looked at.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I shall make sure that my noble friend to my left is aware of the noble Viscount’s point.
Public Order Bill
Lord Sharpe of Epsom ExcerptsTuesday 7th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-II Second marshalled list for Report - (3 Feb 2023)
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Anderson for that important point.
My example is that around Parliament Square, we have a designated area. Your Lordships, passing through it, can be stopped. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has often mentioned that sometimes you have no idea that you are in such an area. I know that all your Lordships would co-operate—we have clarified that it must be an officer in uniform, so we would all stand there. However, if it was tourists who could not speak English, then good luck with that. It may be a young student with no idea that they are being stopped. That would happen. It is in the Bill that it is an offence to resist, and so it goes on. It is a complete overreaction and a disproportionate proposal that the Government are making.
To bring it home, let us think of it on Parliament Square. That is not some obscure place in the back end of London somewhere, or Manchester or wherever. Let us bring it right to our doorstep. When somebody says, “Who made it happen?”, the answer will be that Parliament made it happen, unless it is stripped out of the Bill. Unless it is changed or taken out, it is us.
We have heard from numerous noble Lords today objection after objection to the Bill. I have many objections to it. However, if you hone it down, there cannot be many more pernicious examples than Clause 11. Stopping and searching without suspicion for protests—honestly. Good luck to the Minister in justifying it. I know that his brief will give him all sorts of good arguments but at the bottom, it is a baseless piece of proposed legislation that seriously undermines the right to protest. It will have a chilling effect on many people who are simply protesting in the way that they have always done. I will divide the House when it comes to Amendment 47 and ask your Lordships to stand against Clause 11, to send it back to the other place and say that the Government must think again. It is a disproportionate reaction to a problem which they may perceive and it should be thrown out of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seeks to remove the suspicion-led stop and search measure from the Bill, while that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to remove the suspicionless stop and search measure. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by all noble Lords today when speaking to these amendments, but I do not support the removal of these provisions.
Stop and search is a vital tool used to crack down on crime and to protect communities. It is entirely appropriate that these measures are extended to tackle highly disruptive protest offences. The extension of stop and search powers will enable the police to proactively tackle highly disruptive protest offences by searching for and seizing prohibited items which are made, adapted or intended to be used in connection with protest-related offences, such as glue, chains and locks. We know that stop and search has a strong deterrent effect. These measures can prevent offenders from carrying items for protest-related offences in the first place because of the increased chance of getting caught. This was highlighted in the HMICFRS report on the policing of protests, where it was noted that suspicionless search powers can act as a deterrent when circumstances justify use of these powers. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for repeating this, and there is a difference of opinion with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but as I explained in Committee, His Majesty’s Inspector, Matt Parr, from HMICFRS reaffirmed his support for the suspicionless measure at the Bill’s evidence session in June.
It is vital that the police are given the powers that they need to reflect the operational reality of policing. In the fast-paced context of a protest, it can be challenging to assert the appropriate level of suspicion needed for a suspicion-led search, which is why the Bill includes the suspicionless provision. The suspicionless power will be usable only if certain conditions are met and in cases where, as we have heard, a police officer of or above the rank of inspector authorises its use in a specified locality for a specified period. This power uses a similar framework to that found within Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to ensure consistency in police powers and safeguards.
When this House considered the suspicionless power during Committee, much discussion focused on the execution of the search, so I thought it might help to set that out in detail here. As I noted above, this power uses a similar framework to that found in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. An authorisation for a Section 60 suspicionless order may be given only by an officer of the rank of inspector or above and can be in place for a maximum of 24 hours. The Section 60 order can be extended for a further 24 hours, to a maximum of 48 hours, by an officer of or above the rank of superintendent, but it cannot be in place for more than 48 hours. It is for the authorising officer to determine the geographical area of the order, which will depend on the situation that led to the order being authorised.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Imposing conditions on public processions: serious disruption(1) Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 (imposing conditions on public processions) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2) insert—“(2ZA) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community, the senior police officer may have regard to the cumulative disruption to the life of the community resulting from—(a) the procession,(b) any public procession in England and Wales within subsection (2ZB), and(c) any public assembly in England and Wales within subsection (2ZE).(2ZB) A public procession (“Procession A”) is within this subsection if it was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the procession mentioned in subsection (2ZA)(a) (“Procession B”) is being held or is intended to be held.(2ZC) In subsection (2ZB) “area” means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate, having regard to the nature and extent of the disruption that may result from Procession A and Procession B. (2ZD) For the purposes of subsection (2ZB), it does not matter whether or not— (a) Procession A and Procession B are organised by the same person,(b) any of the same persons take part in Procession A and Procession B,(c) Procession A and Procession B are held or are intended to be held at the same time, or(d) directions are given under subsection (1) in relation to Procession A.(2ZE) A public assembly is within this subsection if it was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the procession mentioned in subsection (2ZA)(a) is being held or is intended to be held.(2ZF) In subsection (2ZE) “area” means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate, having regard to the nature and extent of the disruption that may result from the assembly and the procession.(2ZG) For the purposes of subsection (2ZE) it does not matter whether or not—(a) the assembly and the procession are organised by the same person,(b) any of the same persons take part in the assembly and the procession,(c) the assembly and the procession are held or are intended to be held at the same time, or(d) directions are given under section 14(1A) (imposing conditions on public assemblies) in relation to the assembly.(2ZH) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community—(a) all disruption to the life of the community—(i) that may result from the procession, or(ii) that may occur regardless of whether the procession is held (including in particular normal traffic congestion),is to be taken into account, and(b) “the community” means any group of persons that may be affected by the procession, and it does not matter whether or not all or any of those persons live or work in the vicinity of the procession.”(3) In subsection (2A) (examples of serious disruption)—(a) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) it may, by way of physical obstruction, result in the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of daily activities (including in particular the making of a journey),”,(b) in paragraph (a), for “a significant delay to” substitute “the prevention of, or a delay that is more than minor to,”, and(c) in paragraph (b), for “a prolonged disruption” substitute “the prevention, or a disruption that is more than minor,”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies where—(a) a public procession is being held or is intended to be held in England and Wales,(b) it appears to the senior police officer that there is a connection between the procession and—(i) one or more other public processions that are being held or that are intended to be held in England and Wales, or(ii) one or more public assemblies that are being held or that are intended to be held in England and Wales, (c) the senior police officer reasonably believes that one of the conditions in subsection (1)(a) to (b) is met in relation to the procession mentioned in paragraph (a), and(d) the senior police officer reasonably believes—(i) in relation to a procession mentioned in paragraph (b)(i), that one of the conditions in subsection (1)(a) to (b) is met in relation to the procession, or(ii) in relation to an assembly mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii), that one of the conditions in section 14(1)(a) to (b) is met in relation to the assembly.(3B) The senior police officer may—(a) give directions under subsection (1) in relation to—(i) the procession mentioned in subsection (3A)(a), and(ii) any procession mentioned in subsection (3A)(b)(i) in relation to which the condition in subsection (3A)(d)(i) is met, and(b) give directions under section 14(1A) in relation to any assembly mentioned in subsection (3A)(b)(ii) in relation to which the condition in subsection (3A)(d)(ii) is met.(3C) Directions given in accordance with subsection (3B) may impose the same or different conditions in relation to different processions and assemblies.(3D) In subsections (3A) and (3B) “the senior police officer” means—(a) where the public procession mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) is being held, the police officer responsible for managing the police response to the procession, and(b) where the public procession mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) is intended to be held, the chief officer of police.(3E) A direction given by a chief officer of police by virtue of subsection (3D)(b) must be given in writing.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause amends section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 (imposing conditions on public processions) to make provision about when a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community. The amendments also allow for conditions to be imposed in relation to connected processions and assemblies.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we now turn back to government Amendments 48 to 51, which relate to the definition of serious disruption within Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the reasonable excuse defence with regard to the offences of wilful obstruction of the highway and public nuisance. These were debated by the House last week, so I intend to keep this brief.
Your Lordships will recall the compelling speeches made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in defence of the amendments he had tabled. I am sure I speak for many in expressing regret that his amendments were so narrowly defeated. The Government’s amendments follow the noble and learned Lord’s by proposing many of the same amendments for other aspects of public order legislation.
In summary, government Amendments 48 and 49 alter the definition of serious disruption in Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. They do this by, first, carrying over the definition of “serious disruption” suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Secondly, they define the meaning of “community”. Thirdly, they will enable the police to consider the absolute impact of the disruption caused to the public. Fourthly, they allow the police to consider the cumulative disruption caused by protests. Fifthly and finally, they allow the officer responsible for managing the protest to place conditions on more than one connected procession or assembly.
Government Amendments 50 and 51 are similarly inspired by the reasonable excuse amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Amendment 50 carves protest out of the offence of public nuisance, while Amendment 51 carves protest out of the lawful excuse of the offence of wilfully obstructing the highway. However, recognising that the offence is a low-level one, we do not carve it out in its entirety. Instead, the amendment removes protest from the reasonable excuse only where more than serious disruption is caused.
The Government’s amendments represent sensible, pragmatic changes that not only respond to a request from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service for further legislative clarity on the police’s powers to manage public processions and assemblies but bring aspects of public order legislation into line with recent case law. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Wilful obstruction of highwayIn section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (penalty for wilful obstruction), after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) Subsection (1ZB) applies where—(a) a person wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway, and(b) the obstruction causes or is capable of causing serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation.(1ZB) The fact that the person wilfully obstructed the free passage along the highway as part of or in furtherance of a protest on an issue of current debate does not constitute a lawful excuse for the purposes of subsection (1).(1ZC) For the purposes of subsection (1ZA) an obstruction causes “serious disruption” if it prevents, or would hinder to more than a minor degree, the individuals or the organisation from carrying out their daily activities.””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause amends section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (penalty for wilful obstruction of the highway) to provide that where a person wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway and that obstruction causes or is capable of causing serious disruption, the fact that they did so as part of or in furtherance of a protest on an issue of current debate does not constitute a lawful excuse.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and if she divides the House, we will support her in the Division Lobbies. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, a free press is the hallmark of a democratic society; we should remind ourselves of that. In doing so, I reflect again on the really important point made by my noble friend. The amendment is not concerned with the police using their powers proportionately, where appropriate, if criminal behaviour is taking place. It states:
“A constable may not exercise any police power for the principal purpose of preventing a person from observing or otherwise reporting on a protest”.
It is not saying that there is carte blanche for anybody who is observing to do anything they want around a protest, to exploit it for their own reasons and to conduct criminal activity, or that it would prevent the police doing anything about that; far from it. It seeks to allow reporters and others to observe and report to the wider public, to different sections of the country and beyond, who may not even be there or understand what the protest is about. That is important, and this must be an unfettered, protected power. That is why we support the amendment, which is extremely important, among the many other extremely important amendments we are discussing today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my slightly tardy arrival.
Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seeks to establish a specific safeguard for journalists and bystanders during protests. It follows the wrongful arrest and detention of the LBC journalist Charlotte Lynch in November. May I reassure the House that it is not okay? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is absolutely not okay to arrest a journalist who is doing their job.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for tabling this amendment, and agree with the need for journalists and innocent bystanders to be adequately safeguarded during protests. The Government are clear that the role of members of the press must be respected. It is vital that journalists be able to do their job freely and without restriction. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Cormack that a free press is the hallmark of a civilised society.
The police can exercise their powers only in circumstances where they have reasonable grounds to do so. Hertfordshire Constabulary has accepted that its wrongful arrests of journalists on the M25 were unlawful. Noble Lords will be aware that an independent review was conducted into Hertfordshire Constabulary’s arrest of journalists during the M25 protests. With your Lordships’ indulgence, I will go into a little of the detail on that. Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s report specifies that:
“The power of arrest is principally governed by PACE 1984 and to be lawful, the arrest must be necessary by reference to statutory powers set out within PACE 1984. Code G provides additional rules and guidance on the use of the power of arrest. Of particular relevance to this operation, it is important to observe the judgement laid out following O’Hara v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary 1996—an officer cannot exercise the power of arrest based on instruction from a superior officer. In order to satisfy the requirements under section 24 of PACE 1984, the superior officer must convey sufficient information in order for the arresting officer to develop reasonable grounds.”
I went into that in some detail because Section 24 —“Arrest without warrant: constables”—is very clear. A constable may arrest without warrant
“anyone who is about to commit an offence; anyone who is in the act of committing an offence; anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence; anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence. If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.”
Under those criteria, I struggle to see how the primary purpose of being a journalist, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to, and reporting on a protest, would ever constitute reasonable grounds.
Going back to the Cambridge case, the constabulary also specified that code G of PACE 1984 gives some separate guidance on necessity criteria:
“The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person.”
It is very clear. We are all protected by those rules and that includes journalists. The review revealed that the issue was one of training and proposed several recommendations to fix this, including ensuring that all public safety officers and commanders carry out the College of Policing and National Union of Journalists awareness training. The constabulary has promptly implemented these recommendations. This is not an issue of law but one of training and guidance, which is already being addressed.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, PACE is nearly 40 years old. Is not the training completed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble and learned friend makes a very fair point, but the College of Policing and the National Union of Journalists awareness training is a little more recent than the 40 year-old PACE codes.
The College of Policing’s initial learning curriculum includes a package of content on effectively dealing with the media in a policing context. In addition, the authorised professional practice for public order contains a section on the interaction of the police with members of the media. This includes the recognition of press identification. It should also be noted that it is entirely legitimate for a police officer to inquire why an individual may be recording at the scene of a criminal offence if they deem it appropriate. We do not want to suggest that this is unlawful.
In light of those factors, while I completely understand the direction and purpose of the amendment, we do not support it because we do not deem it to be necessary. These defences are already covered in law.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short but vital debate. Once more to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who I am not sure has read the amendment—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, to be clear at the outset, we will support Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I will not divide the House on Amendment 59. I shall speak to Amendment 63, which is tabled in my name and has cross-party and Cross-Bench support.
I welcome the positive move that the Government have made on SDPOs, particularly removing electronic monitoring and limiting an SDPO’s renewal to only once to take into account some of the concerns raised in this House and the other place. Despite this, it remains my view that it is necessary to pursue the wholesale removal of Clause 20. It is simply not proportionate, necessary, Human Rights Act-compliant or good value for money to introduce a power to allow serious disruption prevention orders to be given without a conviction being made.
This is not just my view. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agrees that Clause 20 would interfere
“with legitimate peaceful exercise of Article 10 and 11 rights”
and that:
“The police already have powers to impose conditions on protests and to arrest those who breach them.”
Amnesty International also agrees, saying that Clause 20 is “wholly disproportionate”, restricting
“the exercise of a fundamental right of peaceful assembly based on past conduct and there is no requirement that the past conduct be of a serious nature.”
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner also agrees, confirming this week that “policing is not asking for new powers to constrain protests”.
Experts agree that, since the police already have the powers they need and since this new power would threaten the fundamental right to assemble peacefully, the Government would be wise to think again on this matter. The UK cannot condemn authoritarian regimes cracking down on protests and at the same time celebrate the bravery of protests such as the umbrella movement or the white paper protesters. I will divide the House on Amendment 63, and I hope the Government will use this opportunity to remove this harmful provision.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this shortish debate. This group contains notices to oppose, so I will start with those amendments which take issue with serious disruption prevention orders as a whole. The feeling expressed by noble Lords when speaking to these amendments is clear, but I do not support the full removal of these provisions, and it is important that I make clear the reasons why.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but causing serious disruption under the guise of a protest is not. Why should protesters who are determined repeatedly to inflict serious disruption continue to be allowed to do so, especially when their actions impact those who simply wish to go about their daily lives, and potentially risk the safety of our emergency services? SDPOs will give the police and the courts the powers that they need proactively to prevent protesters causing serious disruption, time and again. Those protesters found in breach of an SDPO will be liable for arrest, meaning that the police will not need to stand by until an act of protest-related serious disruption has already taken place before they can act.
Some will argue that many of these protesters are already arrested, but a small group of individuals who have been arrested during disruptive protest action have reoffended soon after. To deter this small group of individuals, SDPOs provide an alternative, non-custodial route to prevent those who have a track record of causing serious disruption in the name of protest. SDPOs will prevent protesters causing harm by subjecting them to proportionate and necessary restrictions or requirements. Such restrictions might involve stopping a protester who has previously locked on carrying an item that would assist them doing so again or require a protester, for example, to report to a police officer at the time when a planned protest is due to take place. I should make it clear that it will be up to the courts to consider what measures are put in place on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are both proportionate and necessary.
In Committee, concerns were raised that SDPOs are a harsh and intrusive way of preventing serious disruption. However, it is important to make it clear that a prohibition or requirement of a preventive order is much less intrusive than a prison sentence, which is a potential consequence of some of the protest-related offences that can lead to an SDPO.
Many noble Lords have asked whether anybody at a protest could be subject to an SDPO. As I hope I made clear in Committee, only those who have committed protest-related offences, breached a protest-related injunction or caused or contributed to protest-related activities on at least two occasions would be considered for an SDPO. It is for the courts to decide whether someone’s actions caused or contributed to serious disruption at a protest and meet the threshold of an SDPO.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s question, I say that the person potentially subject to an order may present evidence so, yes, the court may consider evidence from the person potentially subject to an SDPO and may adjourn proceedings if the person does not appear for any reason. I should also clarify that Clause 20(6) states:
“On making a serious disruption prevention order the court must in ordinary language explain to P the effects of the order.”
Therefore the person would need to be present.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I interpreted that subsection to mean that the statement could be in writing if the person did not attend. Is that correct?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will need to clarify that but, given the other things that I have said, it would imply—I stress “imply”—that the person needed to be there, but I will come back on that point.
I also stress that those who make their voices heard without committing offences or causing serious disruption would not be affected.
The evidential threshold of SDPOs was also the subject of discussion. I am sure that many noble Lords support the courts’ imposition of injunctions which are made on the civil burden of proof and ban large numbers of people protesting in certain locations, including, on occasions, “persons unknown”. The burden of proof is the same for SDPOs, and they are made against known individuals whose actions have shown that an order is necessary.
Noble Lords also raised the question of how SDPOs will be enforced. As I hope I conveyed in Committee, it will ultimately be for the courts to place necessary, proportionate and enforceable conditions on protesters subject to an SDPO and for the police to exercise any powers of arrest in relation to breaches. However, I assure the House that the Government will be setting out statutory guidance for SDPOs to aid the police and courts in due course.
The use of SDPOs is critical when equipping the police with powers to ensure that they can take proactive steps against prolific protesters. So in removing SDPOs fully from the Bill, we will continue to see the police struggle to get ahead of those protesters who are hell- bent on repeatedly inflicting serious disruption.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned the HMICFRS’s comments about banning orders not being compatible with human rights, but the report from the policing inspectorate considered only orders that would always ban an individual protesting. SDPOs grant the courts discretion to impose any prohibitions and requirements necessary to protect the public from protest-related crimes and serious disruption, so depending on the individual circumstances this may mean that the court will not consider it necessary to stop individuals attending protests.
Nevertheless, as I made clear when we discussed these measures in Committee, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by your Lordships. In that vein, I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I thank him for his continued engagement on this Bill as a whole. His amendments all seek to amend the SDPO regime in some way, be it limiting the trigger events for an order, limiting the maximum duration of an SDPO, limiting the requirements that can be imposed on an individual or amending some of the guidance that is to be issued by the Secretary of State concerning these measures. We still believe that SDPOs are an important and useful tool for stopping repeat protesters committed to causing disruption. For this reason we regrettably cannot support the amendments proposed, which we assess amount to a substantial dilution of the Bill’s effectiveness. However, we recognise the sentiment behind them, as well as the other concerns raised, which is why I committed to take the matter away.
As a result of that consideration, the Government have tabled amendments which seek to allay some of the concerns expressed by your Lordships. We have tabled an amendment which removes the electronic monitoring provisions from the Bill, meaning that no individual subject to an order would have the requirements and prohibitions imposed monitored electronically. This was a particular concern of your Lordships, and we have responded accordingly. The second amendment reduces the relevant period of past conduct which is considered for SDPOs from within five years to within three years. The final amendment addresses a criticism made by your Lordships concerning the renewal of an order. Indeed, many noble Lords expressed concerns that an order could be continuously renewed. The amendment we have tabled therefore addresses this by setting a limit on the number of times an order can be renewed to only once. It is the Government’s view that these amendments represent a substantive offer and address the main criticisms of SDPOs. I encourage all noble Lords to support the amendments in the Government’s name and to reject the others in this group.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister will recall that I described my Amendments 57 and 61 as clarificatory. It seemed to me that the Government must surely have not intended that a second or subsequent SDPO made in respect of the same person could be founded on trigger events that had already been taken into account for the purposes of a previous SDPO. I understand that the Minister does not accept my amendments, but can he at least clarify that that is the Government’s understanding of the Bill?
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for that and for his engagement throughout this process. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his extremely pertinent points on the three sub-paragraphs that my Amendment 56 would remove from Clause 19, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the broader point, which I tried to make as well, that those sub-paragraphs capture conduct that is simply too remote to justify the imposition of such a draconian order.
Very fairly, the noble Viscount made the point, echoed by the Minister, that a magistrate asked to make these orders under Clause 20, for example, must think it “necessary” for certain purposes—he noted the strength of that word. The noble Viscount is right about that, of course, but I simply ask the Government to have in mind, as I am sure they do, that the purposes for which it can be necessary are expressed very broadly indeed. For example, if you look at Clause 20(4)(c), you see that it can be necessary to prevent a person
“causing or contributing to … the carrying out by any other person of activities”.
One has all the same, very indirect language that I seek to remove by Amendment 56.
My amendments leave the police with a completely workable system to deter the small group of individuals who, in the Minister’s words, are hell-bent on repeating serious disruption; there can surely be no doubt about that. Both my amendment and the amendment relating to Clause 20 are too modest to impact on that objective. That is less than some of us would have wished, and I am sure the Government and the House of Commons will be well aware of that when it goes back to them, if these amendments are carried.
I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who does not think that my Amendment 56 goes far enough. I would love to have seen other amendments put to the vote, but I am told that politics is the art of the possible. I think the noble Lord agrees that this amendment is a great deal better than nothing and that this improvement will be greater still if Clause 20 can be removed from the Bill. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 56.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the provision in Part 2 of the Bill that provided for a serious disruption prevention order to include a requirement for a person to submit to electronic monitoring of their compliance with such an order.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 26, line 12.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 26, line 12.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 26, line 12.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(8A) The court may not renew a serious disruption prevention order more than once.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a serious disruption prevention order may not be renewed under Clause 28 more than once.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 26, line 12.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 26, line 12.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 26, line 12.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom that leaves out Clause 23.
Police Misconduct Cases
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of legally qualified chairs in police misconduct cases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have launched a review into the process of police officer dismissals to ensure that the system is fair and effective and removes those who are not fit to serve. This will include an assessment of the composition of misconduct panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not astonishing and deeply disturbing that in Cleveland, a legally qualified chair whose name is unknown to the public is holding up a gross misconduct hearing, announced in August 2021, at which Mike Veale, the discredited policeman who besmirched the reputation of Sir Edward Heath, will finally be called to account? When asked about this, Ministers say that an anonymous chair may delay proceedings when it is in the interests of justice to do so. They also say that it would be inappropriate to comment further since proceedings are ongoing. Proceedings are not ongoing—they have not even started. How can it possibly be in the interests of justice to delay indefinitely this hearing while giving no explanation at all as to the reasons? The Home Office will surely have made full inquiries about this matter since I have raised it several times. What does my noble friend have to say about the extraordinary state of affairs in Cleveland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to go over old ground. The arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the independent legally qualified chair appointed to it. My noble friend is right that legally qualified chairs must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided with a notice referring them to proceedings, but this period may be extended when a legally qualified chair considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so. I am afraid that I will have to repeat the old mantra that it would be inappropriate to comment further while these proceedings remain ongoing.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Leicestershire PCC, Mr Matthews, refused the chair of the panel’s request for Mr Veale to be interviewed by the panel, as the law demands he should be, what is HMG’s view of Mr Veale’s resignation last week from his post as interim chief executive officer of the OPCC?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the appointment of staff is a matter for police and crime commissioners but, as the noble Lord is right to point out, they are required by legislation to seek the views of their police and crime panel when appointing to senior positions within their office. I note Mr Veale’s resignation but the Home Office has no role in such appointments and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter directly.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in matters of police misconduct, there is a delicate balance to be drawn between local accountability and local flexibility on the one hand and consistency in dealing with these cases on the other. Does the Minister agree with the inspectorate that there is a need to standardise decision-making processes when dealing with misconduct, and do the Government accept all the recommendations contained in the An Inspection of Vetting, Misconduct, and Misogyny in the Police Service report?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, on the latter point, I think the police forces have accepted all the recommendations. As regards the consistency of decision-making, that is one of the things that the dismissal review panel is going to consider. The first term of reference is to:
“Understand the consistency of decision-making at both hearings and accelerated hearings”,
so the answer is yes.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a legal assessor for regulatory panels. My noble friend will know that Parliament has established an independent regulatory panel in respect of almost every profession that exists. Those regulatory panels have the power to make interim orders of conditions and suspension when appropriate, and they can very often make their interim order within a few days of the referral of the complaint. Should the police not consider that model?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, again, I refer my noble friend back to the fact that the dismissal review is ongoing. It would be foolish of me to pre-empt the outcome of the review’s findings.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in the circumstances of the case raised by the noble Lord, is the Minister saying, in effect, that there are absolutely no circumstances under which the Home Office will intervene, even though this case is continuing not to be dealt with, month after month? He will know that under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, the Home Secretary can intervene if a PCC is not being effective. Why will the Home Secretary not intervene?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I say, I am unable to comment on ongoing cases. I know that irritates the House and I apologise for doing so, but there are specific circumstances which make me unable to comment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is now almost two and a half years since the Independent Office for Police Conduct found sufficient evidence for there to be a misconduct hearing. I see that the Government cannot intervene in police conduct itself but will they encourage the police to speed up the handling of these misconduct hearings, which have now drifted on for so long and so inadequately?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. I certainly encourage them to speed this up. Having said that, this is a particular case. It is considered to be in the interests of justice for the legally qualified chair to go beyond the normal 100 days. Beyond that, I cannot go.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, twice said that the legally qualified chair in this case was anonymous. That is not universally the case. In many other forces, legally qualified chairs are named. Indeed, proceedings describe who is on the panel. Why is Cleveland different?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend find out and tell the House? Does he not realise that every answer that he has given in this stonewalling performance has been utterly unsatisfactory? He has made the Home Office seem completely impotent. At the very least, we need to know who this anonymous man or woman is.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for not accusing me this week of being incompetent, at least. I will do my very best to find out the answer to that question.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister like to address the question asked by my noble friend Lord Hunt? It was not about an ongoing investigation. It was a point of principle. Does he accept that there are circumstances under which the Home Secretary can carry out an investigation under the statutory powers already available? As a matter of principle, does he accept that?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
Do the Government agree that the chairmen and members of police misconduct panels should never be open to any suggestion of conflict of interest arising from their previous careers?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it not possible for the Secretary of State to carry out the implementation of what is being delayed? Why is it not being done now?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am unable to comment on ongoing cases.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as past chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation. None of this would have happened if the disgraced policeman, Mike Veale, had faced an independent inquiry into his witch hunt against the late Sir Edward Heath, as this House has repeatedly demanded. The Home Office keeps referring to all these inquiries, but they were all carried out by the police themselves, marking their own homework, and are no substitute for a judge-led review of how the good name of a distinguished former Prime Minister was deliberately besmirched—at great cost to the taxpayer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend. He makes some extremely good points, which I will take back.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code H) Order 2023
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 December 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 January
Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, 97 people lost their lives as a result of what happened at Hillsborough on that terrible, awful day 34 years ago. We must never forget what followed: a shameful cover-up of the truth by the police and others, and decades of families, their supporters and the community having to fight and campaign to uncover what actually happened. We again salute their courage. Five years after Bishop Jones’s report, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power: A Report to Ensure the Pain and Suffering of the Hillsborough Families is not Repeated, why is there still no government response? Can the Minister give us a categoric statement today? When will we get that government response and end the shameful and unacceptable wait for a response to the bishop’s recommendations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that Hillsborough was an awful and devastating tragedy, and its impact is still felt today, especially by the families and the bereaved. My thoughts are with them.
As regards the report, the noble Lord is right: it was published a number of years ago. For the first four years there were criminal proceedings ongoing, and it was felt that it would be inappropriate to publish a response while those proceedings were ongoing. My right honourable friend in the other place, the Policing Minister, yesterday committed that the Government’s response will be published in full in the spring—he has not yet been more specific than that. He has also committed to speed up the work being done on this, and there are still ongoing consultations with the bereaved families.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, Hillsborough almost matches my time in this Chamber; it has been there as a constant for nearly 34 years. The fact that the police apologised publicly yesterday was a major step forward, but when it comes to a response in the spring, is there anybody in this Chamber who does not know that spring usually means autumn, at best? Can we not do a little better than that and give a firm date for this to occur, or at least a maximum deadline so that we can actually have some closure on this, which all those involved deserve?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry, but I am unable to go further than the Policing Minister in the other place.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, it is more than 18 months since the Daniel Morgan panel, which I chaired, published its report. We recommended a statutory duty of candour to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve, subject to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation. The Government owe a response not only to the Hillsborough families who have waited so long but to the family of Daniel Morgan, who have waited a very long time. Is our recommendation for a statutory duty of candour, which would be binding on police and law enforcement agencies, part of the Government’s plan?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As part of the February 2020 integrity reforms, the Government introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for police officers, which provided clarity on the responsibility to participate openly and professionally as a witness in various circumstances, including in the misconduct of others. The noble Baroness is quite right to bring up the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report, which obviously considers this matter fully, and the Government will take its recommendations into account.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I echo tributes to my friend, the former Bishop of Liverpool. As a young priest 34 years ago, I was summoned to Hillsborough to support bereaved families in the immediate aftermath. That the Hillsborough families were not fully consulted in October last year when the Home Office announced an independent review is, I fear, deeply regrettable. Will the Minister now commit to ensuring that the Hillsborough families remain consulted, engaged and at the heart of the Government’s response from this point on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think the right reverend Prelate is referring to the pathology review. It was announced in October 2022; the terms of reference were published then, in response to a point of learning from the former Bishop of Liverpool’s findings on the experiences at Hillsborough. The review is led by Mr Glenn Taylor, an independent forensic scientist and an expert with extensive experience in death certification. It has been paused while the families are consulted; they felt—and it was felt—that they deserved more input into this.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it has been 34 years since this happened and many other institutions are now involved, such as the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the IPSO. Can my noble friend the Minister outline whose responsibility it is now to ensure that this does not happen again, and to walk back through the whole process to check that the institutions we now have in place would have prevented this happening in the first place and could prevent a tragedy of this scale happening today?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think we should also refer to the fact that safety in stadiums has improved dramatically, so one would hope that the circumstances in which this tragedy occurred would not be able to happen in quite the same way—which is not to say it might not happen. The culture of policing has come under considerable scrutiny in the last few weeks. I welcome the police’s apology for the actions they have taken, and I am assured—and convinced—that they are making the right responses and taking this as seriously as it deserves.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, Members will be aware that I represented the constituency that covered the ground, and I reinforce what my noble friend Lord Coaker said. I ask the Government to help bring closure for the families and communities most affected after 34 years. I would like the Minister to draw to his ministerial friends’ attention the fact that my noble friend Lord Wills brought forward a Private Member’s Bill in this House that did not progress, but that might be returned to and help in this process.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and I agree: the families and the bereaved definitely deserve closure. Whether they will ever truly achieve it, I do not know. I will certainly reflect on that and take it back to my ministerial colleagues.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we owe it to our former colleague the former Bishop of Liverpool to give a formal, firm government response very soon. I completely understand why my noble friend was not able to go beyond what was said in the other place yesterday, when he was answering the noble Lord, Lord Addington. But the noble Lord had a very real point. Will the Minister please go back to his department and say, “Can we please have a date? Be it 1 May or 1 June, can we have a date very soon?”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It would be preferable if I were able to state a date. I am not, but I will certainly take the noble Lord’s concerns back and ask the department to firm up on this. I stress, though, that the Policing Minister in the other place has committed to speeding this process up.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, to go back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with trust and confidence in the police at historically low levels, why did the Government oppose placing a clear, simple and easily understood statutory duty of candour on the police in primary legislation, as exists for the NHS? A statutory duty of co-operation in secondary legislation is not the same thing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that point, but the former Bishop of Liverpool’s report is being considered. We will publish our full response in due course, and I am quite sure that the duty of candour will form part of that response.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the bishop’s report made it very clear that when it came to the first round of inquests, the families could not secure legal aid, whereas all the public bodies were publicly funded in their legal applications. When can we expect equality of legal arms when it comes to these sorts of inquests?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks a very good question, and I am happy to say that some of the initiatives that have been taken support the sorts of things he is talking about—for example, the removal of means testing for exceptional case funding to cover legal support for families at an inquest. That broadens the scope and access for families. We have also refreshed the Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People. I hope that goes some way to answering my noble friend’s question.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it goes some way but, sadly, not far enough. It should not be a matter of exceptional case funding, should it? If public authorities are funding themselves and the police are funded, why should the bereaved families, in any situation and in any inquest, not be funded at a matched level?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness, and I will take that suggestion back.
Metropolitan Police: Criminality
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent of criminality within the Metropolitan Police.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office publishes regular statistics on criminal proceedings against police officers and has commissioned HMICFRS to review countercorruption arrangements, including those of the Metropolitan Police. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry will look at tackling the causes of police criminality and misconduct and, more broadly, police culture. The Home Secretary is clear that the Metropolitan Police must redouble its efforts to root out corrupt officers to prevent the kinds of shocking cases we have seen recently.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, are we not agreed across the House that urgent action is needed to enable Sir Mark Rowley, the courageous Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to boot out the many criminals and incompetents in the Met, while acknowledging, of course, the dedicated service provided by the majority of officers? How can this urgent action be reconciled with a leisurely four-month Home Office review, whose terms of reference took several weeks to be agreed? The department says it needs evidence; is not the evidence provided by the continuing supply of shocking cases that emerge? Sir Mark has said that
“we have hundreds in policing who shouldn’t be here”.
Give him the means to clean up the Met, and give it to him now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to the review of police officer dismissals that was announced by the Home Secretary on 17 January, when she published the terms of reference. That will include a consideration of the merits of a presumption for disciplinary action against officers found to have committed a criminal offence while serving in the police. Of course, the review was set up partly in response to the comments that Sir Mark has previously made, and partly in response to the interim review of the Casey report. It would be irresponsible not to collect the appropriate evidence before making these very important decisions.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is quite right to raise the urgency of these terrible cases. Will the Minister reassure us that the review being carried out will consider the most radical measures? One thing that I have become convinced of over the past 15 years is that the office of constable is more a bar to excluding the bad than it is about protecting the good. A constable’s employment rights are protected by secondary legislation, which includes the ability of lawyers in the employment tribunal process within the police. Home Office guidance establishes that when dismissing an officer the standard of proof should not be just the balance of probabilities but should travel towards beyond reasonable doubt. Both those measures do not help to get rid of the difficult officers that the noble Lord and Sir Mark have mentioned. Both those things should change. By all means, give officers access to employment tribunals, which, frankly, they can get through other means anyway.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that and defer to his extensive experience. One of the things that the review is doing is looking at whether the current three-stage performance system is effective, which will obviously have to take into account some of the things that the noble Lord has just raised. I should have said in my earlier answer that the review has a time limit of four months on it. Obviously, that time is ticking, and the terms of reference were announced a couple of weeks ago.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House will share the views of most right-thinking members of the public in condemning the crimes committed by the officers who were mentioned in the debate—the abhorrent crimes of David Carrick. There are clearly faults in the vetting system and in the complaints investigation system. Will the Minister say whether in the case of an officer in force X who is found to have had an allegation made against him in force Y, where he lives, there is a duty on force Y to inform his employer—that is, force X— of the complaint?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have the answer to that question and will have to find out and come back to the noble Lord. I would say that the IOPC is capable of investigating these allegations without having been notified by the officer’s force.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this is more than a series of bad apples; I am sure that there is something rotten in the culture and structures in policing that comprehensively and immediately needs to be addressed. We have the nine turnaround priorities that the new police commissioner has set out. Can the Minister set out how the Government will assist with and ensure those priorities are realised as a matter of urgency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In my original Answer, I referred to part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry. I met Lady Angiolini last week and she made it clear that police culture will form a critical part of her investigations in part 2. The formal consultation on the terms of reference for part 2 opened earlier this month and will conclude, I think, on 24 February. Noble Lords are welcome to contribute to that consultation process. I am sorry for the long answer, but I shall go on a little. The inquiry will consider whether vetting and recruitment processes do enough to identify those in policing who are not fit to serve. It will investigate the extent to which misogynistic and predatory behaviour exists in police culture and look at whether current measures do enough to keep women safe, particularly in public spaces.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us a firm undertaking that any investigation will not be hampered by a lack of resources? If we do not have that, it does not really matter what we do.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, given the important Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, which concerns us all, and the concerns that have been raised in this Chamber, how on earth is it possible to read in the papers this morning the headline: “Retired rogue police invited to come back and fill vacancies”? Reported figures show that 99 recently retired officers who had retired under investigation for misconduct had been invited back; and 253 officers who had received warnings at misconduct hearings were invited to return. How on earth does that restore public confidence in the police?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have not read the story to which the noble Lord refers, so I cannot comment specifically, but certainly superficially, I agree it does not restore confidence.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, at a time when public confidence in policing is at this low level, will the Minister examine the role of the 200 or so staff networks, many of which are blurring the line between policing and politics? I refer not to the Police Federation but to organisations such as the Green Police Network, the police vegan network and the National Association of Muslim Police, which has been known to criticise the Government’s Prevent programme. Is it not critical that police officers stick to operational duties rather than interfering in politics, and leave the latter to politicians?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, policemen should be able to express their opinions on these matters, as we all do, but I will certainly take my noble friend’s points away, do some more investigating and reflect on them back at the department.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a significant cultural dimension to this issue? Understandably, as a body, the police have a deeply defensive and internally focused culture. Simply picking malefactors out of that body will not solve the fact that there is a deep-rooted cultural issue. In my view, deep-rooted cultural change is needed to change the culture of the police force so that it is not as defensively minded as it appears to be at the moment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I have already expressed that the Angiolini inquiry will look into all aspects of that culture. This is also a useful time to remind all of us that the vast majority of serving policemen do an exceptional job and deserve our thanks and praise.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the “spy cops” undercover policing inquiry that is going on at the moment has taken years. It is a classic case of police forces covering up former crimes. What makes the Minister think the inquiry he mentioned will be any different?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
There are very specific circumstances surrounding the undercover inquiry to which the noble Baroness refers. She is right that it has gone on for too long; unfortunately, it looks like it is going to continue to go on for quite a long time. As regards this inquiry, I have every confidence that Lady Angiolini—as I say, I met her last week—will be rigorous; she has been up to now.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many more criminal prosecutions are pending against serving Metropolitan Police officers?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have that statistic to hand, but I do have some others.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I promise noble Lords that this is a better answer than it sounds. The latest data shows that 83 criminal proceedings relating to police officer misconduct were finalised in 2021-22, but of misconduct cases commenced after 1 February 2020, when new regulations came into effect, 68 resulted in the officer being found guilty; there was a change to the way in which the statistics are collected.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code H) Order 2023
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code H) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before this House on 12 December. Following the horrific terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, the then Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, to review the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, commonly referred to as MAPPA, used to supervise terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders on licence in the community. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, hereafter referred to as the 2022 Act, established three new powers for counterterrorism policing: a personal search power, a premises search power and a power of urgent arrest. These powers were established in response to recommendations made by Mr Hall KC following his review of MAPPA.
This order relates to the new power of urgent arrest, which was inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 as new Section 43B of that Act by the 2022 Act. The new arrest power came into force on 28 June last year. The Government have also taken this opportunity to make a small number of updates to the code to reflect changes previously made by primary legislation, including ensuring that relevant terminology within the code is up to date.
As set out by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act, the new power of urgent arrest applies across the UK. The power enables the police to arrest without warrant a terrorist or terrorism-connected offender who has been released on licence and is suspected to have breached their licence conditions when it is considered necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a terrorism risk, to detain the offender until a recall decision is made.
Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, commonly referred to as PACE, requires the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice in connection with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to arrest a person and the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by police officers. We have prepared a revised PACE Code H, which relates to the detention and treatment of people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000; it applies across England and Wales. This order seeks Parliament’s approval to bring the revised code of practice into force.
The primary update to PACE Code H is the incorporation of the new urgent arrest power provided for by Section 43B of the Terrorism Act 2000. A terrorist offender who is detained under new Section 43B must, unless recalled to prison or otherwise detained under any other power, be released if a decision is made not to revoke their licence and accordingly the offender is not recalled to prison. A terrorist offender must also be released from police detention if a recall decision has not been made by the end of the relevant period, which in relation to terrorist offenders who have been released on licence under the law of England and Wales is six hours, beginning with the time of the arrest.
The Government have updated PACE Code H to reflect this new arrest power, including by ensuring that there is clarity for the police on the length of time for which the terrorist offender on licence can be detained, and their rights upon first being detained, such as their right to have one named person informed of their whereabouts and their right to consult and communicate privately with a solicitor. The revised PACE Code H also reflects that there is no requirement to caution a terrorist offender on licence who is arrested under Section 43B, as they will not have been arrested on suspicion of committing a criminal offence and so will not be questioned or interviewed by the police under caution while being detained under this power. The Government plan to collect data from police forces on the use of this targeted power, as we routinely do for other police arrest powers, and make this data publicly available through future statistical publications.
The Government have also updated PACE Code H to reflect other changes already made to primary legislation by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, hereafter referred to as the 2019 Act. The 2019 Act amended provisions in Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to specify in the legislation that, on first being detained, a detainee must be informed of their rights to inform a named person of their detention and consult a solicitor. The 2019 Act replaced provisions in Schedule 8 that would enable a senior officer, in certain exceptional circumstances, to direct that the detainee has to consult their solicitor in the sight and hearing of another officer with one whereby a senior officer can, in these exceptional circumstances, require the detainee to consult a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support this statutory instrument, which revises the PACE code of practice H to reflect the introduction of a new power of urgent arrest by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. As the Minister outlined, this power enables the police to arrest without warrant and detain a previous terrorism or terrorism-connected offender who is suspected of presenting a further terrorism risk to the public. It also updates Code H to reflect changes made by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
As the noble Lord said, the horror of the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in 2019 and a subsequent attack in Streatham is a reminder of the harm that terrorist-risk offenders are capable of. Following these attacks, the Government commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, to review MAPPA, which is used to supervise such terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders. The creation of the power of urgent arrest was recommended as part of this review.
We supported the introduction of this power during the passage of the PCSC Act and we support it now. We believe it is vital to have the right safeguards in place. With the introduction of such powers comes the possibility of unintended consequences or missed opportunities. I look forward to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation considering the effect of the introduction of these powers, as well as the other new powers introduced to improve the management of terrorist offenders on licence, and the 2019 powers that Code H now includes.
I was just reflecting on my memory of the attack in Streatham, which is not that far from where I live. I have no inside information on it other than what I read, but I read in the papers various bits of speculation about the officers who were tracking that terrorist offender, who was out on licence; they observed a crime being committed and intervened, and the offender was killed. The speculation I read in the press was about how that process was managed and the huge resource-intensiveness of tracking such people when they are out on licence. Can the Minister say anything about whether this change to the codes of practice within Code H is partly a result of the large resource implications of tracking such offenders when they are out on licence? However, we support the changes.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked me, first, in essence, where is the guidance for the police pre arrest? Of course, the guidance is operational in nature, so it will be issued by Counter Terrorism Policing and the College of Policing, which will issue it internally. Any guidance for officers is of a highly tactical and operational nature and will therefore obviously have to sit within the police’s own guidance rather than a government-issued code of practice.
On how to determine whether an individual is on licence for a terrorist offence, this will be understood through close working by Counter Terrorism Policing and the Prison and Probation Service, which will include information-sharing and briefing about terrorist offenders on licence. If they breach their licence and are recalled, a warrant will be out for their arrest. Obviously, policemen can find out whether an offender is out on licence by checking their details on the police national computer, which will flag it.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about potential operational constraints on the police because of potentially large numbers involved, obviously, I hope that there will not be a large number of people subject to these powers, but I am quite sure that if Counter Terrorism Policing and more routine and—shall we say, traditional?—policing come up against capacity issues, we will certainly hear about it and come back to debate this in further detail. I fear that I cannot supply any better detail than that at this point. However, I will have a dig and, if I can find anything, I shall come back to the noble Lord in writing, if that is acceptable.
Lord German (LD)
Just before the Minister moves on, reflecting on the answer he just gave me about the internal guidance, is that guidance publicly available? If so, has it already been written and where can we find it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not know whether it is publicly available; I am afraid I shall have to find that out as well and come back to the noble Lord. I should be somewhat surprised if it is, but you never know.
In closing, I reiterate that this order provides for the revised PACE Code H, which relates to the detention and treatment of people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and applies across England and Wales, to be brought into force. This revised PACE Code H will govern the fundamental principles to be observed by the police when exercising the new urgent arrest power in Section 43B of the Terrorism Act 2000 and will help preserve the effectiveness of and public confidence in the use of police powers of arrest. The updated code will also reflect various changes made to primary legislation by the 2019 Act, as well as other minor updates to ensure that the terminology in PACE Code H is up to date with wider legislative changes. I can pre-empt writing a letter to the noble Lord, Lord German: I fear the guidance is for internal police use only, so it is not public. That said, I thank both noble Lords for their broad support for this SI and I commend it.
National Security Bill
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 to 23, Schedule 2, Clause 24, Schedule 3, Clause 25, Schedule 4, Clause 26, Schedule 5, Clause 27, Schedule 6, Clauses 28 to 39, Schedule 7, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 8, Clauses 44 to 51, Schedule 9, Clauses 52 to 54, Schedule 10, Clauses 55 to 58, Schedule 11, Clause 59, Schedule 12, Clauses 60 to 65, Schedule 13, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 14, Clauses 71 to 73, Schedule 15, Clauses 74 to 88, Schedule 16, Clauses 89 to 92, Schedule 17, Clauses 93 to 100, Title.
Public Order Bill
Lord Sharpe of Epsom ExcerptsMonday 30th January 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I Marshalled list for Report - (26 Jan 2023)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I just gently remind the House of the rules of debate on Report, which say:
“On Report, no Lords Member may speak more than once to an amendment, except: the mover of the amendment”.
Intervening repeatedly on other Members is not really in keeping with the rules of debate on Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading and in Committee there was much discussion on the meaning of “serious disruption”, and many noble Lords spoke to the need to provide a clear definition in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in what has been a fascinating debate. At Second Reading, I agreed with many of the comments made by your Lordships and committed to take the matter away. What we are debating today is the matter of thresholds, as all noble Lords who spoke noted. The debate is not about whether these measures ban protests: quite simply, they do not, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his comments emphasising that fact. We are trying to ascertain the point to which protesters can disrupt the lives of the general public. This Government’s position is clear: we are on the side of the public.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling his amendment, which provides a definition of “serious disruption” for offences in the Bill. I agree with the purpose of his amendment but do not believe that the threshold is appropriate. The Government want to protect the rights of the public to go about their daily lives without let or hindrance. I do not believe that his amendment supports this aim; therefore, I cannot support it. I make no secret of what the Government are trying to do. We are listening to the public, who are fed up with seeing, day after day, protesters blocking roads: they make children late for school; they make people miss hospital appointments; and they make small businesses struggle. Any change in law must address this, and I do not believe that the noble’s Lord’s proposed threshold does.
In this vein, I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which also provide a definition of “serious disruption”, but for the specific offences of locking on, tunnelling and causing disruption by being present in a tunnel. His amendments follow the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal following the Colston statue case. The court found that the right to protest does not extend to acts of criminal damage that are violent or where the damage is to more than a minor or trivial degree:
“We cannot conceive that the Convention could be used to protect from prosecution and conviction those who damage private property to any degree than is other than trivial.”
We agree with the judiciary and believe that this threshold should be consistent across the statute book. Although the court concerned itself with the matter of damage to private property, the same principles apply to obstructing the public from enjoying their right to go about their business without hindrance. That is why the Government support the noble and learned Lord’s amendments; I am very pleased we were able to surprise him in that regard. They provide a threshold for “serious disruption” that is rooted in case law. I thank him for tabling this amendment and, indeed, for explaining it in such a detailed and precise way. It provides both clarity to the law and a threshold that addresses the public’s frustration with disruptive protests.
I will now speak to government Amendments 48 and 49. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service has asked for further legislative clarity on police powers to manage public processions and assemblies. These powers are conferred by Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 for processions and Section 14 for assemblies. They allow the police to place reasonable and necessary conditions on protests to prevent specific harms from occurring. One of these harms is
“serious disruption to the life of the community”.
These two amendments provide clarity to this phrase for both Sections 12 and 14. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was quite right in anticipating that I would be quoting Sir Mark Rowley, who said:
“I welcome the Government’s proposal to introduce a legal definition of ‘serious disruption’ and ‘reasonable excuse’. In practical terms, Parliament providing such clarity will create a clearer line for police to enforce when protests impact upon others who simply wish to go about their lawful business.”
These amendments, supported by the police, prioritise the rights of the law-abiding majority. First, they carry over the noble and learned Lord’s definition of “serious disruption”. Secondly, they define the meaning of “community”. Thirdly, the police may consider the absolute impact of the disruption caused to the public. Fourthly, they allow the police to consider the cumulative disruption caused by protests. Finally, they allow the officer responsible for managing the protest to place conditions on more than one connected procession or assembly. In answer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that these are too complicated, I say that the Home Office will work closely with the NPCC and the College of Policing to ensure that appropriate guidance and training are developed. Mirroring the definition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will provide consistency across the statute book. As I have said, this is welcomed by the police. I point out that the definition specifies that the disruption is caused by physical means only.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised in the Policy Exchange paper the use of “minor” in the definition. These amendments protect the daily activities of the public; it is clear that the public are fed up with the disruption caused by protesters, and that is what these amendments address. Many protests that do not disrupt the lives of others occur on a regular basis. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very good point: that we should not allow the protesters themselves to determine the scale of disruption. Many protesters are able to express themselves and place pressure for change without blocking roads.
Currently the term “community” is undefined. The police should be able to use their powers to protect anyone who is detrimentally impacted by serious disruption from protests, not just those who live, work or access amenities where the protest occurs. The police must consider the absolute disruption caused to the public, as opposed to the disruption relative to what is typical for an area. The measure will give officers the confidence that they can use to respond to disruptive protests, even in areas routinely subject to spontaneous disruption such as traffic jams. To prioritise the rights of the public, the amendment allows the police to consider the cumulative impact of protests and separate protests. It is wrong that the public must repeatedly put up with disruptive protests, in part because each time there is a new protest, the police must consider the level of disruption afresh and in isolation from what has previously happened and what may be planned. If multiple protests cumulatively ruin the daily activities of a community, they must be considered collectively. Following from this, if the police are to manage the collective impact of protests, they must be able to apply the conditions on separate but connected protests. For example, a large protest campaign made up of multiple small protests that disrupt a large area should be subject to blanket conditions. Allowing the police to consider the cumulative impact of protests by requiring them to manage each individually complicates the operational response unnecessarily. Collectively, these measures will allow the police to protect the public from the disruptive minority who use tactics such as blocking roads and slow walks. The public are clear that they want the police to protect them from these tactics. In turn, the police have asked for clarity and law to confidently and quickly take action and make arrests where appropriate. The Government have listened to both, and I hope this House does the same and supports the amendment.
I will speak collectively to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. These measures do two things to the locking-on and tunnelling offences. First, they lower the threshold of the offence so that acts capable of causing serious disruption are not in scope. Secondly, they alter the mens rea so that only intentional acts, and not reckless ones, are in scope of the offence. It is clear that the public do not want to see police officers sit by while criminal protesters disrupt their lives; lowering the threshold would mean that the police will have to do so. Why should an officer stand by and watch someone lock on or dig a tunnel that is clearly going to cause serious disruption to the public? As for the mens rea, as I have said already, the Government are concerned with the disruption caused to the public. It does not matter whether it is caused recklessly or intentionally; what matters is the impact it has on people’s daily lives. For all these reasons, I encourage all noble Lords to support the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and those by the Government and reject the others.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can the Minister deal with the issue of “be capable of causing” as opposed to actual disruption?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I did deal with that when I was talking a little about the tunnelling and locking-on offences. Why should the officer stand by and watch someone lock on or dig a tunnel that is clearly going to cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to the public? Certainly in terms of tunnelling, I think that is very clear.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 4, line 14 and page 4, line 15 provide that the offence in Clause 4 may be committed only in relation to a tunnel that was created for the purposes of, or in connection with, a protest.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(5A) In this section “relevant tunnel” means a tunnel that was created for the purposes of, or in connection with, a protest (and it does not matter whether an offence has been committed under section 3 in relation to the creation of the tunnel).”Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 3, line 28.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 3, line 28.
Public Order Bill
Lord Sharpe of Epsom ExcerptsMonday 30th January 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I Marshalled list for Report - (26 Jan 2023)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate, and some would say that this may be the House of Lords at its best.
I shall first address the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey. She has come late to the party, and I have to say that I think that her amendments have suffered for that reason. Her amendments have not been tested against the Human Rights Act in any way; we do not know what the House of Commons would think about them, and we do not know what the Supreme Court would think about them. Of course, that is in contrast to Amendment 45, where we have a good view of the House of Commons’ likely view, as well as that of the Supreme Court, and as far as we know it is HRA compliant. So I think the noble Baroness has difficulties with her amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke to his Amendment 44 and spoke about the lack of use of public space protection orders. I thought that we heard very effectively from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about how public space protection orders had not in practice been put to any great use. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in his speech also explained why they were not suitable for protecting individuals, as opposed to the rights of groups. But I have to say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, betrayed himself at the end of his speech when he spoke about the lack of evidence of public disorder, which he prayed in aid for having a review. I have to say that I am not thinking about public order —I am thinking about the individual women who are going to get these services and are being intimidated through cruel protest, in many ways.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to which I also have my name. I pay tribute to her for all the work that she has done on this matter; I know that she has been in constant discussion with Members of the other place and the Government, and this really is as good a chance as we have to get something on the statute books in good time. As I say, I pay tribute to her. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has welcomed these efforts.
One of the most influential speeches was from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who talked about the practicalities of policing a 150-metre zone and local authorities being reluctant to put in place public space protection orders. He also talked about the ingenuity of protesters potentially being able to get around the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morrisey. That was perhaps one of the most influential contributions this evening. I hope that the noble Baroness tests the opinion of the House and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I echo other noble Lords who said that this has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate. As has been referenced and as noble Lords will be aware, through a free vote in the other place, Clause 9, which establishes buffer zones outside abortion clinics in England and Wales, was added to the Bill by 297 votes to 110. I said during the Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee that the Government will respect the will of the House of Commons.
At the time of introducing this Bill in the House of Lords, I signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement under the Human Rights Act 1998. This was because, at the time, we believed it was more likely than not that Clause 9 would be found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have considered this again following the Supreme Court’s judgment in relation to the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill in Northern Ireland. We now believe that Clause 9 is more likely than not to be compatible with the convention. However, we must be clear that while we can draw some parallels between Clause 9 and the Bill in Northern Ireland in relation to the balance of rights, they are not directly comparable. In particular, the threat levels from protests are different in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bill does not cover private property. It is also worth noting that the legislation in Northern Ireland is not yet in force. There have been no prosecutions, so it is difficult to make any assessment regarding enforceability of the Bill in Northern Ireland.
Clause 9 was described at the time in the other place as a “blunt instrument”, as others have noted. There is always a balance to be struck between the rights of protesters and the rights of others to go about their daily business free from harassment and disruption, as we have heard debated in relation to many of the other clauses of this Bill. People’s rights to gather, express their views and practise their religious beliefs are protected under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. People’s rights to privacy in accessing healthcare services are protected under Article 8. All these rights are qualified, and it can be appropriate to infringe on them sometimes—for example, to protect other rights or prevent crime.
The Government committed to work with noble Lords across both sides of this debate to make Clause 9 clearer and more enforceable. I thank those noble Lords who took the time to meet me and discuss this issue, and I can assure them that all views were taken into careful consideration and constructive conversations were had on all sides.
The Government have decided to step back and will take a neutral stance during this debate. I committed, as I said earlier, at this Dispatch Box to respect the will of the House of Commons, and I think the best way to do that is to allow the House of Lords to express its will. This clause will undoubtedly be tested in the courts. But this evening, we are offering a free vote to noble Lords on the Government Benches—although I cannot speak for the other Benches—so that noble Lords can vote with their conscience on where the balance of rights should lie.
The Government believe that all the amendments on the Order Paper today would more likely than not be found to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. With that, it is now for the House to decide which amendment, if any, they wish to support.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
Given that, even if my amendments were passed, the whole clause would be overturned by a majority of support for either Amendment 44 or Amendment 45, I will save a few minutes of your Lordships’ time and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.