Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Robert Goodwill. By the way, Members are free to take their jackets off if they feel so inclined.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Chair. We have seen the police over recent months, and indeed over the last couple of years, having great difficulty in policing some protests, such as Extinction Rebellion protests, that have been disruptive to people in their everyday lives, stopping people getting to work and getting to hospital and, more recently the protests that have been conducted despite the covid restrictions and regulations. How will the provisions in the Bill help you to better police these protests? Do you feel there is a risk that if we go too far it could undermine the trust between the police and the general public and the right that we all hold dear to demonstrate and make our views known? At the same time, we must respect the rights of other people to conduct their everyday lives.

Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: BJ, I will probably let you take that one first.

Chief Constable Harrington: First and foremost, all police training and all police responses to public order and protest, and those important freedoms that you referenced, are in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Of course, there is always the balance between the positive duties to ensure that people can express those rights, and those negative duties, ensuring that we infringe on those rights only when that is proportionate and necessary. I think the point is around getting the balance right in protecting the rights and freedoms of those who are impacted by that.

We asked for some of the changes that are incorporated into the Bill, including more currency around the powers in the Public Order Act 1986 as was. Protest and assemblies have changed since that time. There are issues such as when does a procession become a static assembly, and an assembly become a procession? There is the consistency of what the police can do, always within a landscape of balancing the competing rights of those affected and those who wish to express their rights. There is also the need for real clarity for both the officers who are required to make difficult decisions, balancing objectively and proportionately what they need to do, and for those who wish to express those rights or to have them protected.

We think that the proposals to align sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 really do bring that currency to what we see and how people protest, assemble and march now. There will also be consistency so that people can better understand. Of course, things like the public nuisance elements allow us—the police—to anticipate better where there will be significant or serious impact. “Significant impact” is the phrase we would want to see. You have seen and referenced some of that significant disruption to people whose rights are infringed by others. We think that the changes bring currency and consistency and, overall, greater clarity for all those who have to police it and those who take part.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Do you feel that the Bill goes far enough in giving you power? Many other countries, for example, use water cannon to deal with that type of demonstration and disruptive activities. Have the Government put enough tools in the Bill, or would you have liked to have seen more?

Chief Constable Harrington: From our perspective, we asked for the consistency between those two sections, and that is included. We asked for, and would like to see, particularly serious disruption—a very high threshold—to become more like significant impact on the community. Of course, we can prove disruption, and it is also about whether the impact is on, for example, a small business, an individual, a neighbourhood or, indeed, a large institution or Parliament itself. We asked for that, and we think the Bill starts to address that.

In terms of the powers and the response to that, the tactics and things, whether that is the use of force, that we apply—you referred to water cannon available to other police forces and other countries—always need to be in that balance and, of course, proportionate and necessary to achieve that legitimate aim. But the proposals give us greater clarity to be able better to balance those competing rights, which are always tricky and difficult and always require judgments about those who are affected by it and those who are expressing their rights, and there will always be opposing opinions. I think the Bill broadly gives us that extra power.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q During the Extinction Rebellion protests, we saw people taking the law into their own hands and, for example, pulling protestors off the roofs of tube trains. Do you feel that, with these provisions, the public will be less likely to feel they need to intervene to ensure they can carry out their ordinary lives, with the police powerless to do so?

Chief Constable Harrington: If I may reference Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services’ survey of the public, where there is serious disruption, the public are very supportive of the police being active and preventing that action taking place. I think the public will perhaps always step in when they see a significant impact on them, or in terms of the lower elements, where it is just frustrating perhaps or just annoying. I think the public in the survey showed that they are more tolerant of that.

It goes back to the previous questioner’s point: in the police service, we guard the freedoms of expression and assembly very carefully, because they support police legitimacy in terms of the police being the public, and the public being the police. So I think the Bill gets the balance right. I think the public will always be concerned where people are climbing on top of tube trains, which is simply dangerous. That will always be a case where the police or the public would want to intervene.

[The Chair]

Is there anything you want to add, Mr Hewitt?

Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Not really. We police public order and protest in a particular way, and I am very proud of the way that we police that. As has just been said, it is always a challenge to balance the different rights, responsibilities and risks, and that is what our commanders do routinely. What the provisions in the Bill give us is greater consistency and clarity, which is really important for the commanders and the officers on the ground, but equally for people who are seeking to protest. This is an environment that changes and shifts, and the Bill gives us extra certainty and clarity in terms of dealing with situations as they arise.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I think we had better move on. I call Robert Goodwill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Mr Apter, I would like to ask you a little about police drivers. The general public understand that from time to time, those driving police cars will need to break the speed limit, disregarding signals, pedestrian crossings and so on, but I understand that the Police Federation has been campaigning for more clarification in the law for those situations, to protect drivers who were acting in the public interest when something has, unfortunately, gone wrong. Could you give me a bit more information on why you think those changes might be needed?

John Apter: This is a longstanding problem for policing and actually for all the emergency services. What we have seen far too often was highlighted in a case in the Hampshire constabulary, when a traffic officer—a roads policing officer, who was fully trained—was engaged in the pursuit of someone who had stolen a vehicle after quite a nasty burglary. It was a textbook pursuit; nobody was injured and we caught the baddies at the end of the pursuit. However, that officer and his crewmate were prosecuted for dangerous driving and they ended up in Crown court. The reason is that the law, as it is currently, does not recognise the training that the officer has received or the purpose to which the vehicle is being put. That puts my colleagues in a very vulnerable position.

So we have been campaigning for many years to try to redress the balance. I want to say on the record that this is not about the Police Federation saying that colleagues can drive as they wish without any fear of scrutiny; some people may have to face prosecution or inquiry. But far too many of my colleagues are prosecuted for simply doing what they have been trained to do.

All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.

We expect police officers and indeed other emergency drivers to get to a particular place as quickly and as safely as they can. The law fails to protect them at the moment. So, yes, we are seeking those changes. I am really pleased to see the Bill but there are some amendments that we want to see, and we are working closely with the shadow team and the Home Office to see if we can bring about those changes, to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose and protects the officers who deserve to be protected.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Is it easy to define a situation when a police officer will disregard, for example, a speed limit? If there was a domestic incident, presumably there would be a judgment call as to whether a woman may be in danger, or whether it was just a case of getting there within the law. Is it difficult to define when a police officer can use that discretion—I suppose that is the word—to break the speed limit?

I guess that with an ambulance and a fire engine, it is less nuanced, but with the police you would not necessarily know until you get to the scene whether life is at risk and whether it is necessary to speed there.

John Apter: Indeed, and the training has certainly evolved. The emergency response and the pursuit training for police drivers has evolved over the years, and the training certainly brings in the judgment—it is all about the information that the officer will receive.

I was a roads policing officer for many years. I was trained in response and that judgment is so important because very often at the end of a pursuit or an emergency drive, it is the driver who is responsible for their actions—nobody else. So, yes, you can only deal with the circumstances that you are presented with and you have to risk-assess in that moment. It is a fine balance.

However, I would say, and I genuinely believe, that we have the best driver training in policing in the world—I really do believe that. Our driving standards within policing, with the emergency driving, are exceptional. We just need that element of protection, but it is not to say—I have used this phrase before—that I condone a wacky races culture. That is not what I am supporting. It is about balance.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Perhaps Mr Griffiths might want to add to that, although it was a fairly comprehensive answer.

Chief Superintendent Griffiths: The only bit I would add is that there are circumstances where officers still have to exceed the speed limit as part of their duty. So it would be quite important for us to consider surveillance officers, those doing diplomatic escort and so on, where their driving may leave them in a position where they are under investigation, and it would be reasonable to have the same standards applied to them in the circumstances that could prevail.

[Maria Eagle]

Q May I ask you both whether the new powers for policing protest contained in the Bill are necessary, and do you welcome them?

Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I know that you have had extensive evidence on this from Chief Constable Harrington as the NPCC lead. Our members play a significant role in protest, whether they are silver or gold commanders, depending on the size and scale of the protest. One emerging trend that has caused them great difficulty has been the change in tactics with some of the protest processes, such as protesters gluing themselves on to certain items involving vehicles—locking on. That change in their movement and the inconsistency have caused our members considerable challenges in terms of how best to interpret the law and apply it in a necessary and proportionate way, so there is support in terms of providing consistency for some of the challenges that they face as the operational public order commanders.

In terms of some of the definitions around “serious disruption” or “significant impact”, we will obviously wait for that to be clearly defined by Parliament, but the training mechanisms that are in place for our public order commanders and public order teams are really significant, are quite detailed and do allow them to really play through and work through some of the judgment calls they have to make, and some of the judgment calls may have to be made within seconds, so some of the changes and amendments do gain support from us.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Bambos Charalambous]

Q A final question about limiting the use of child remand: do you think the provisions in the Bill go far enough?

Adrian Crossley: We welcome the addition of the new statutory duty clause for courts that requires them to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We think that is a positive part of the Bill. It would be nice if it could go further. Seeing custody as something to keep people safe is not correct, but there is broad support, as far as I can tell, from people with an interest in youth justice for this change. I know some of my colleagues would like it to go further.

Adrian Crossley: I can only add that we have seen a substantial reduction in custodial sentences for youths over the last 10 years or so. We welcome efforts to encourage rehabilitation and use it absolutely as a last resort. I think it goes far enough.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q I would like to ask about the extension of categories of positions of trust. We have all been appalled by the way that some individuals have abused those positions, as football coaches, in gymnastics, in children’s homes or in the Catholic Church and other religious settings.

Currently, as I understand, clause 45 would extend those definitions and include anyone aged over 18 who supervises or works with 16 and 17-year-olds. I know from personal experience with my own family that, often, older children at a dance school, perhaps over 18, often chip in to help with tuition and coaching. In some cases, they may even be in the same class at school as a 17-year-old who is part of that dance academy. I wonder whether there could be difficulties in situations such as that. Indeed, we also remove the right to give consent from 16 and 17-year-olds who may find that infringes on their ability to choose who to have a relationship with. Perhaps Mr Crossly might be most appropriate to respond first.

Adrian Crossley: The first point to know is that affording some protection in this area is absolutely imperative. We have seen abuse of trust that has led to not just inappropriate relationships—that is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with sometimes highly vulnerable children who are sexually abused. In order to make an inroad into dealing with that sort of offending, we need to get to the crux of how it comes about. All too often, positions of trust can allow a perpetrator to hide in plain sight—not only that, they make the person who is abused feel partially responsible and incapable of speaking out. The perpetrator recruits the trust of the people nearest and dearest, including their parents.

While I appreciate that there may be some difficulties in the administration of this issue, that will not unnecessarily impinge upon the movement of people and their enjoyment of their leisure, I do not put that value at naught—absolutely not. I do see, at the other end of this, we have a very real risk, which has existed pervasively throughout our society for a long time. I think the extension into the position-of-trust model starts to move away from identifying it as in small pockets of society and to see it as the modus operandi of some perpetrators of crime. I think its broadness is important and the clause as it stands is sufficient.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q So you would not agree with those who might argue that a small number of perfectly proper relationships might be caught up in this and that we could end up with people being unnecessarily criminalised. That is not to undermine the points that we all agree with about people in positions of trust who exploit that. The question is whether a person’s right to give consent could be undermined by these changes in specific situations, particularly where an 18-year-old is at the same school or in the same class as a 17-year-old.

Adrian Crossley: So much of this, as with any law, is about how it is actually executed on the ground and how the decision-making processes operate. At this stage, when you are looking at the written form of the clause, I can see that there is potential there for consent. The administration of a clause like this relies on good practice, and I would say that these things can be circumvented. You have the same sort of problem with something as controversial as stop and search, where you can see that there may be a very good reason for it but, done badly, it can be incredibly corrosive to society; it can stop people moving around freely. But that does not mean that the legislation itself is wrong. It will come down to how we administer this, and a continual review of that is necessary. But I do accept this: it is not possible for me to say that there will not be friction and difficulty as this clause is administered.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Goodwill, have you got a short one you want to squeeze in?

[Mr Goodwill]

Q It is a quick follow-up to the points on illegal occupation of land. We see a situation where Travellers purchase land and then occupy it—they obviously do not plan to travel a great deal more—and it becomes a planning issue rather than one of trespass and occupation. I cannot see anything in the Bill that would address that. I know that the planning process can be protracted. Could more be done in that area? Perhaps Mr Lloyd might comment.

David Lloyd: I feared that you were going to say that. I am not convinced that anything can easily be done. Clearly, on private land, there is a planning process, but it is private land, and that is difficult. I think you are talking specifically about where someone has purchased land and invited people in, and they may well have inappropriately developed that land so that there is a site built there. It is very difficult to know how to deal with that. I certainly have not got the answer. You may well have an answer among you, but how you get the planning process to discriminate, if you like, in a positive way against that which is clearly not right and for that which is right will be difficult.

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

I think we can allow each side of the Committee seven or eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. Robert Goodwill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Thank you, Chair. As a layman, I was not aware that terms that are understood more widely in the community have specific legal meanings and definitions. What benefit is there in codifying the common-law offence of public nuisance into statute? Does it clarify the situation or help? Or would you be critical of that suggestion? Perhaps Mr Willers could answer.

Marc Willers QC: It might be better for Mr Wagner to deal with that issue, given that I am dealing with part 4.

Adam Wagner: This is a recommendation by the Law Commission, as I am sure you are aware. My concern about codification is that it becomes a statutory tool in the armoury that might not previously have been used. I appreciate that the Law Commission recommended it. It does have benefits in terms of clarity and making the definition of public nuisance a statutory one, rather than coming out of common law and arguably being subject to not being clear.

I do worry that once it becomes a potential tool in the box, it will be used more. From the perspective of protest, and protecting the right to protest and freedom of assembly, it is just another tool in the armoury of public authorities to limit protest. Both Mr Willers and I deal with cases involving private injunctions against protesters and, in Mr Willers’ case, Gypsy and Traveller communities. You can see this proliferation in the courts of the use of any kind of method that will allow private companies and public authorities to restrict what is generally non-violent activity that does not cause much, if any, public order issue. You can see that being used. My concern is that it adds another potential bar to an already quite extensive collection of bars to public protest.

Marc Willers QC: I echo what Mr Wagner had to say. In the context of unauthorised encampments, there has been what has been described by the Court of Appeal—Lord Justice Coulson—as a feeding frenzy, in a case involving Bromley’s application for a wide injunction, effectively creating a no-go zone in Bromley, where Gypsies and Travellers would not be able to camp. That has been replicated up and down the country, in what has been described, as I said, as a feeding frenzy of litigation.

The Court of Appeal, in that context, concluded that the creation of such no-go zones offended the Equality Act 2010, the European convention on human rights and the protection of the right to respect for the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers, and the enshrined right to roam. To bring it back to unauthorised encampments, in part 4 of the Bill the Government appear to be creating the no-go zones that the Court of Appeal has said in another context would fundamentally breach the rights that I have identified.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Mr Willers, I was going to ask whether you thought that as cases come to court and we get more case law, some of these definitions might become more clearly defined and could be referred to if they go to appeal or even to higher courts, so we might see clearer definitions as we use this law in practice.

Marc Willers QC: The problem with part 4—it is speculation as to whether or not definitions will become crystallised in litigation—is that most Gypsies and Travellers will have left the site and be unable to challenge the decision by a police officer to arrest them, given the scenario that would play out under, for example, proposed new section 60C of the 1994 Act. A Gypsy or Traveller parking on a piece of land with their family, perhaps on the way down to Kent from somewhere up north, is not going to hang around when threatened with the seizure of their vehicle to argue that they should be entitled to remain on the land. Even if they did, they would probably not get legal aid with which to challenge the application of the section and their prosecution. In those circumstances, we are probably unlikely to see much, if any, judicial consideration of the vague terms in part 4.

Adam Wagner: If I may, I will add that

“serious unease, alarm or distress”

is not new to the law. You see that wording in the definition of criminal harassment and in other places. My concern is more about width than about clarity. I have dealt with numerous cases involving over-wide injunctions. There is quite a lot of case law about clarity versus width, and the point is that once this language is in the law relating to noise, it will be obvious to the courts that it is a very wide provision indeed and will rely to quite a large extent on the decision making of the police officers.

For example, if a protest decided to be completely silent, it would be difficult for the police to say that that protest was going to cause enough noise to cause serious unease. I imagine that the next Extinction Rebellion protest we see will be completely silent after this. But in seriousness, I think the court will just see that as very wide. What you have really got here is nothing to do with public order; it is about nuisance. It is about criminalising a certain kind of nuisance arising from what should be a protected activity—exercising political speech rights, under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention.

[Mr Goodwill]

I think—

[The Chair]

We will move on. I call Sarah Jones. You have about six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. We have until 5.45 pm for this session.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Could I ask a question about open justice? We will all have seen American courthouses where some of the barristers seem to be playing to the gallery rather than necessarily to the jury. Do you think that the proposals to make justice more open to the public and to observation will work? Do you support them?

Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions there. Would we support them? Yes, because open justice is a really important objective within the justice system. Will they work? There are obvious problems with managing hearings that are accessible over the internet, particularly in an age of social media when people know how to record things and take photographs and video online—that sort of thing. I think there are issues with how you police open justice and ensure that proceedings have the seriousness and gravity that they should have and that you do not get an abuse, particularly on social media, of the facility to be able to see things from afar. But generally I think it is a move in the right direction.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q We have seen situations where jurors have been engaged in social media conversations about a case, and I think in some cases they have been found guilty of contempt of court. If, particularly in high profile cases, there was a lot of social media debate, could that increase the number of situations in which jurors are compromised or undermined by being tempted to engage in that? As it is sometimes difficult to see what jurors are doing, could we police that in any way? If that subsequently came out, could it result in miscarriages of justice?

Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think at the moment there are already dangers around jurors doing things that they should not through the internet and social media. They are given a very specific warning and written information about what they can and cannot do while they are serving on a jury. I think all of this must be considered with a lot of care. There are bits of court proceedings that I think should not be directly under the gaze of the camera and so on. So there is a lot of room for working out what the protocols are and how things work best.

On the general point, there is plainly a risk that we will have more occasions on which there could be potential contempts of court, but I do not think we can go backwards; we just have to manage these things as we have done with every technological step forward that impacts on the justice system.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q And there is no danger whatsoever that barristers might play to the gallery to try to raise their own personal profiles and popularity.

Derek Sweeting QC: Well, barristers never do that, of course. I think we are a long way off the American sort of proceedings that we sometimes see. That is perhaps slightly unfair to many American attorneys, who conduct their business with a lot of decorum, even under the gaze of the camera.

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you. That was slightly tongue in cheek, although we do occasionally have barristers appearing at the Dispatch Box and I would not comment on their performance.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Third sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Sorry, Mr Robb, we did not hear that because we have a bell going off in our ears. Could you repeat that?

Campbell Robb: I hear the bell ringing. I was just agreeing with both of them; I have nothing to add.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q As always, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. What we have just touched on is central to the way that we can try to rehabilitate some offenders. There is a vicious circle, which I am sure most Members of Parliament will have come across, where we are trying to rehabilitate a young offender and get them into work, but the cost of the disclosure rules often put the employers off or make the person have to return to crime—that is probably not a good way of putting it, but they are forced into criminal activity because they cannot get gainful employment.

Have we got the balance right? To what extent is an employer entitled to know somebody’s criminal history? Can we do more to work with employers to get them to understand? Companies such as Timpson, for example, have been very good at taking on people who have criminal pasts, and rehabilitating them. Does the Bill move in the right direction on this? Does it protect employers from potential criminal activity from employees and does it make it easier for people to get into work?

Sam Doohan: The direction of travel is certainly positive. At the same time, we do not think the balance is right yet in the overall rationale for employers at the basic level, who are not obliged to ask for a criminal history and have a free choice whether they do or not. The fact that employers can ask because they are nosy is not fair to applicants at any level.

A 2001 study commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions said that a lot of the problems around employers asking come from the recruiter and the person who chooses to ask. The study broke that down across several categories, including age and position within a company. There are various factors that make people more willing to ask and more willing to discriminate if people disclose a criminal past.

Another factor that came out from that was that employers would, if given scope to do so, claim that just about any job you can imagine had some tangential relationship to someone’s previous criminal history. Perhaps in a very loose sense, that could be argued to be true, but we see driving convictions being held against people in jobs that do not involve driving, or people with a driving ban, who cannot legally drive, having that conviction held against them for pushing trolleys in the car park in Asda. There is some rationale in allowing employers to ask, but we do not think the balance is there yet. It is being used just to discriminate.

Helen Berresford: The balance point is a really important one. We work with employers as well, and understanding their needs is a really important part of that. For a lot of the employers we have supported, it is about transparency and knowing what they can ask and understanding that point. The system is so complex and arbitrary at the minute, and the transparency is not there, so the faith and trust in the system are not automatically there. We have to get to a point where it is transparent, easy to navigate and much simpler.

Sam’s point about motoring convictions is absolutely right. We have supported people who have had job offers withdrawn because an employer has come across their motoring conviction, which has absolutely nothing to do with the job that they would be doing. It is about relevance for the job. That is a really important factor.

Campbell Robb: As both my colleagues have said, this is a step in the right direction. There is more we would like to see in the Bill. The other point is that, when we get through this, whatever the new regulations are, the Government, working with ourselves and employers, need to really think through how we talk about this. We need to run campaigns and explain to employers and work with businesses and business organisations, so that we do not just all talk about Timpson—which is brilliant at this and does a very good job, but we want to have dozens of organisations. We know they want to do more in this space, but feel put off and worried by the complexity that comes with it. We would like to see a bit more in the Bill, but we also want to work afterwards with the Government and employers to make the measures work better.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q In our farming business, we once hired a young man and we did not know until he started work that he had just come out of a young offenders institution. He was a lodger in my mother’s house. He was absolutely fantastic, but if we had known, we may not have hired him. I genuinely do not know the answer to this question, but to what extent are probation service staff, who probably know more about these offenders than anyone else outside their own family, able to engage with employers to help them make that decision, or is that not in the probation service’s remit?

Campbell Robb: We work every day with thousands of people who are coming out of prison, trying to settle them. We work with employers across the country to find either permanent or short-term opportunities. Criminal records are just one barrier to many people who are trying to get work when they come out of prison. It is about training and education, rehabilitation in prison and what is available then, and suitable accommodation. There is whole range of factors.

The new changes to the probation system, which I know the Justice Committee has looked at recently, are hopefully opening up some opportunities for all of us who work in this space, to provide a more rounded service. These changes to criminal records will help a bit, but they will make a big difference if we can go just that bit further.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Q Can I ask our witnesses about problem-solving courts? We have had them before. In fact, when I was the Minister of State for Justice and Equalities before the 2010 election, we had a number of different problem-solving courts, such as mental health and drugs courts. My recollection is that they worked very well, saved the system a lot of money in the long run and helped individuals, but they cost a bit more to operate. My experience of them was that they were a good thing, but they were all abolished during the austerity years by the coalition Government. So, we know they work. Do you agree with that assessment? Would you like to see problem-solving courts simply rolled out, so that we can make the savings that they make for individuals sooner rather than later?

Campbell Robb: It is simple: the answer is yes. The commitment in the Bill to community sentences, treatment requirements and problem-solving courts is a real step in the right direction for non-custodial, rounded approaches to sentencing and rehabilitation. When we work with problem-solving courts in the areas that have them, our experience is that they do work. We need to provide that rounded approach to non-custodial sentences, which is to do with treatment, problem solving, a good probation service, training and development. In short, the answer is yes. These are a good thing. We would like to see more of them. The evidence is generally positive, both for pathways out of addiction and into employment, and for reducing reoffending. We look forward to working with whoever is providing them to really get that.

The second thing to add is about better awareness among judges about the success of these courts and how to use them. When the Bill is passed, how do the Government intend to work with the judiciary and other providers to make sure problem-solving courts become more available and better used?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Excellent. We are receiving you—brilliant. I am not sure if you can see us yet, but we can certainly see you. I call Mr Goodwill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Good morning, Dame Vera. I think the victims who feel most let down by the criminal justice system are the victims of rape. Very low numbers of those cases get to court and, similarly, low numbers achieve convictions. Over recent months and years, some electronic data from phones has been used to undermine some of those cases. Messages sent to placate—certainly not to antagonise—the abuser in an abusive relationship can be used to undermine the case, for example. Proposals on data analysis and consent for it are coming forward, but how can we improve victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system—particularly for crimes such as rape and other serious sexual offences—and reduce requests for information from those victims?

Dame Vera Baird: Thank you very much, Mr Goodwill. It is very good to see you again—we were next-door neighbours at one time, constituency-wise.

I will focus on the digital download point, because it is extremely key. Clause 36 in the Bill is very problematic. We have done some considerable work on it, which I would like to mention. First, let me compliment the Home Office team who drafted it and who approached us to ask what we thought of it. Let me explain that I fully understand, as I guess the Committee does, that the purpose of clause 36 is different from the area Mr Goodwill has just rehearsed.

I understand from Mr De Meyer, who is the NPCC police officer I have mostly been talking to about this, that people say to the police, “Someone is harassing me” or “Someone sent me this. Look at my phone—there is the evidence.” The police are worried that if they take the phone, they might be in breach of the investigatory powers legislation, so they are seeking a statutory power to take a phone off somebody who is voluntarily giving it up. That was good to understand—that is fine—but the power as set out at the moment does not contain any protections for the complainants who are in the position that Mr Goodwill has mentioned.

If I may, I will briefly rehearse the position as it is seen from the victim’s point of view. If you look at a Rape Crisis survey 18 months ago, or if you talk daily to ISVAs, you will find that the view is that on the ground it is practically routine for rape and sexual assault complainants to be asked to hand over digital devices, and for most of the material on it to be trawled, so far as they are aware. Apparently, according to my network of stakeholders, the CPS frequently seeks a level of material straight away, before it charges, and if a complainant refuses, the case just does not get considered for charge. That is very, very troubling, and it has a chilling effect not only on current victims, but on reporting, and it could impact victim attrition.

We did an analysis of a data set showing that one in five victims withdrew their complaint of rape at least in part due to disclosure concerns. Home Office data shows an increase of rape complainants withdrawing pre-charge, and it is right to say that many senior police officers, including Mr De Meyer, accept that there has been a big blow to the confidence of the public in the police because of the whole issue of digital data.

In my own former area—I was the PCC in Northumbria until not quite two years ago—the Home Office funded a pilot of independent legal advice for rape complainants dealing with digital download. That pilot disclosed that about 50% of the requests for digital download of rape complainants’ devices were not necessary or proportionate. Of course, we must take some comfort from the fact that that means the other 50% were, and my understanding is that this pilot worked well. It was praised by 23 of the 25 professionals involved in it because it also speeded matters up: where there was a legitimate request for a particular section of the contents of the device, the independent legal advisor was able to get to grips with its reasonableness and advise if it was reasonable, and it was then very quickly accepted. None the less, 50% of requests were not in that category, and we do know that it influences people about reporting rape when they fear that not only their own personal data, but the data of everybody else who is on their phone—their little brother, their sister, their mother, anyone they may confide in—will also have to be disclosed.

The last three points that I really want to emphasise to let you appreciate the seriousness of this problem are that in 2020, the Information Commissioner published a report about exactly this, and outlined a series of ways in which the police were not complying in a number of respects with data protection legislation. The gateway for consent was one of the concerns, and there was an internal report by the CPS two years ago, which found that 60% of its requests for digital download were over-intrusive and not necessary. A little bit later, HMCPSI found about 40% were in the same category. The police have now done a lot of work to try to shift policy backwards, and this new power—which has no obvious nod, even, in the direction of the protection of complainants—came out of the blue from a different Department of the Home Office, and has absolutely none of the protections that, in policy terms, the police have been looking towards for quite some time.

We have the ICO, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council all meeting with us, and we are very pleased with that. We asked whether we can draft some amendments to this that will safeguard the protection the police need, but will also offer protections for complainants when the power is used for this—as it will be, of course. In a very lightning run through them, there is no definition of agreement. What it says is that an authorised person can take information from a device if it has been voluntarily provided and there is agreement to give the stuff, but there is no definition of agreement, and we know very well—as I have just recited—that often, there is a sort of implicit threat that if you do not, that is the end of the story. We defined agreement in a fairly obvious way—fully informed and freely given. There is no requirement at all for the police to specify the nature of the material, let alone the actual material, that they want to look for. It is just all or nothing: you agree or you do not agree. A big concern is that although it is described as information that needs to be relevant if it is being sought, it does not make reference to the very important turn of phrase in the legislation, which is a “reasonable line of inquiry”. It is much broader.

We therefore drafted some amendments that dealt with all of those points and a number more, and we offered them to the Home Office team. I am very pleased to say that the National Police Chiefs’ Council accepted them, and felt that they fulfilled all the requirements that it had and offered some excellent protections. I am very pleased to say that the Information Commissioner’s Office, although it is happy with the code of practice going way beyond this legislation, also accepted them. The Home Office did not. When we tried to probe why, the answer came:

“While the NPCC indicated they were content with your drafted provisions, they have also said they were similarly supportive of the draft we prepared. We incorporated their operational perspective…with the views of our technical and legal experts”.

[Mr Goodwill]

I think we probably need to move on, because other colleagues want to get in.

[The Chair]

I think we have to move on now. It is not that this is not important. It is hugely important, but you have asked one question and there was a 10-minute response. We have three colleagues. We cannot do that again. I call Mr Dorans.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. We have a question straight away from Mr Robert Goodwill.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q As a former Children’s Minister, this is something very close to my heart. I would like to ask you a little bit about custodial remand and whether you find that in practice, custodial remand is currently used appropriately for children.

Hazel Williamson: In terms of custodial remand, we have seen a significant reduction under the previous legislation and the current legislation. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, we have seen a reduction in remand. Some of the challenges that remain for remand are around those robust packages, and in particular suitable placements, for our children and young people. We know that placements is a national issue for children and young people, and finding the most suitable is really difficult. What we know about our cohort in the youth justice system now is that they have changed over the past 20 years. They are presenting with significant trauma and abuse, often as a result of exploitation. That makes it really difficult for our local authority colleagues to source an appropriate placement.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Some children may be living in dysfunctional families, but very many whom the criminal justice system comes into contact with are in local authority care. In fact, sadly, these children make up a large proportion of those who get involved with the police, both as children and as they become adults: if you look at the prison population, far too many of them have been in local authority care. In your experience, is it more likely that a child in local authority care will be put into custodial remand, or would there be a consideration that that would be a good alternative?

Hazel Williamson: With remand into custody, we would always try to offer suitable alternatives wherever possible, whether that is a robust bail package supported by our youth offending teams or remand into the care of the local authority with that additional support. We know that in the custodial population, there are high numbers of children who have been looked after or are currently being looked after, along with other needs, but wherever possible we would try to work with our local authority to seek that suitable alternative to remand.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Finally, in terms of scrutiny of these decisions, what structures does your association think could be utilised or built on at a local level, or indeed at a national level, to make sure that remand decisions are properly scrutinised?

Hazel Williamson: In particular, I would like us to record remand decisions more robustly in the courts. We need clear decision making; we need it to be clear why we have made those decisions. Also, we should take the opportunity to encourage regular reviews of remand and seek alternatives wherever possible.

I think on a national footing we need to be working closely with the Department for Education and our director of children’s services to develop a more robust placement process and improve the quality of the market for placements.

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you very much indeed for those clear and concise answers.

[Maria Eagle]

Q May I ask about secure 16-19 academies: the new initiative, delayed for various reasons, to try to break that link between being in custody and educational achievement ending up very low? Do they offer a way forward not managed by other provision? Do they provide a fundamentally different model from the current youth custodial provision?

Hazel Williamson: We are obviously supportive of anything that improves youth custody. We know that outcomes for children who end up in youth custody are poor and have been for some considerable time. The recent inspection reports will detail that we do not yet have the significant improvements we need in youth custody.

As an association of YOT managers, we believe that children in custody—custody should be a last resort—should be placed in small, secure units close to their homes. We do not advocate large custodial establishments where children are placed far away from their home; we would advocate small custodial units. As for the academy trust, it remains to be seen what the detail is around the secure school and how children will manage as part of the routine within that environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Fantastic, thank you for that. Robert Goodwill, over to you, sir.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Good afternoon, Ellie. I would like to ask you about a subject that we discussed in some detail on Tuesday: the policing of demonstrations and the way that demonstrations can be compliant. It seems an area where the law and politics collide quite violently. It appears quite difficult to draft legislation so that those who pretty much know what they want to achieve can do so in a way that is legally watertight. Do you accept that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are qualified rights, and that in managing a disruptive protest, the police need to balance those rights with those of others who may be adversely affected by the protest—people who want to go to work or go about their normal lawful business?

Ellie Cumbo: Certainly, there is nothing in there that sounds controversial to me. I should, however, flag that the Law Society at the moment does not take the view that it is right for us to comment on the public order provisions of the Bill. That is largely down to the fact that our role is to comment on how they will work in practice and whether it will be possible for them to be implemented by the police and understood by solicitors, clients and the general public. Much of that remains to be seen. It is, after all, the case that these are political decisions.

We of course take the point about fundamental rights. We want to point out that it has become extremely clear in the last year and a half that it is important not only that the law is clear and accessible in the ways that I just described, but that it is enforced in a way that is consistent and can be understood by the general public. That is something that we would call for. Beyond that, we have not seen fit to comment on these particular provisions.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q So you have not gone so far as to try to predict how the provisions brought forward by the Government may actually work in practice. It is pretty much, “Let’s suck it and see if it actually does what we want it to do.” Are you saying it is difficult to predict whether these will be effective and whether they will work, or difficult to predict whether the police will be able to use these tools at their disposal in a proportionate and possibly compassionate way?

Ellie Cumbo: I am saying that it is not within our remit. We have to judge our remit based on what we take to be in the interests of our members, which of course includes issues of principle such as the rule of law and access to justice. It may well be the case that there comes a point where, if great concern is expressed by those agencies and bodies with greater knowledge of how these provisions would be enforced in practice—policing bodies, voluntary sector bodies—we might see a need for us to add our voice to those concerns, but there are more appropriate bodies to comment on those at this point than us.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Thank you. There are some terms we use in everyday conversation that have specific legal meanings that most members of the public would not be aware of, so could I ask what benefit codifying the common law offence of “public nuisance” into statute brings?

Ellie Cumbo: Again, clarity of the law is an issue of concern and interest to the Law Society and its members. We have not taken a view on that particular Law Commission proposal, but we certainly would not oppose it. Codification does not always come without disbenefits: in this case, we are not aware of any, but to reiterate, we have no strong view on that at present.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Would the same apply to using the terms “annoyance” and “inconvenience”, understood in the terms of public nuisance? Is the jury still out on that one as well, from your point of view?

Ellie Cumbo: I am afraid so. I am sorry not to be able to assist the Committee on that, but we have taken a view that at the moment, that is not an area for our expertise.

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you.

[Maria Eagle]

Q I think the Law Society does have some concerns about some aspects of the Bill. Would you like to set out to us the main areas of concern that the Law Society has?

Ellie Cumbo: Certainly. The heading for all of our concerns is access to justice and the impact, or potential impact, of some of the provisions on access to justice. Now, in some of those areas, it is more that we have a question and we would like to see more detail about how this will look in practice—the open justice provisions would be in that category—but there are two particular areas where our concerns are already sufficient to put us in a position where we do not support what the Bill currently proposes. Those are in relation to video juries and the pre-charge bail provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Great. Mr Goodwill next.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q I shall start with a short question. Which parts of the Bill do you welcome and which parts might need some changes or improvement? Who wants to start?

[The Chair]

Do it in the order you introduced yourselves.

Dr Paradine: In terms of improvement, we think that there has to be a focus on rehabilitation and not on sentence inflation and the ripple effect that that will have on the prison population, and particularly on the crisis in prisons. We welcome the focus on improving community sentences, but we feel that there needs to be a really close look at what that will mean in practice on the ground.

Certainly in terms of the impact on actually preventing rehabilitation rather than encouraging it, it is important that we consider what the knock-on effects are on the system. In terms of undermining improvements that are happening on the ground, whether it is diversion from custody or strengthening support services, the Bill does not address any of those issues as it currently stands. The ripple effect on sentence inflation is a real concern for us.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q On that point, before we move on to the other witnesses, what is your view on giving the probation officer a power to increase a sentence? We were talking about carrots, but perhaps we should talk about sticks at the same time.

Dr Paradine: When we talk to probation officers, their concern is caseloads and the access to support services that help people to address the root causes of offending. We do not believe that probation officers need any more powers, and we do not think that they think that they need them, either.

The issue is access to a full, strong network of support services, particularly focused on the needs of women in the case of those that we address. For the purposes of enforcing sentences, there is not a problem with sentences not being harsh enough. Community support services that enable people to complete those sentences are what is really needed, not extra powers for probation officers.

[Mr Goodwill]

I cannot remember who was next.

[The Chair]

It is Nina Champion.

Nina Champion: We certainly welcome aspects of the Bill around reducing use of child remand, criminal records reform and the focus on diversion from custody, but overall we are very concerned about the sentencing and policing aspects of the Bill, and about the lack of evidence that it will improve public safety or reduce crime. It will put great pressure on an already stretched criminal justice and prison system. We are particularly concerned that the cumulative impact of many of the recommendations will result in increased racial inequality in our criminal justice system.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Would you not agree that keeping dangerous, violent or sexual offenders in prison for longer protects the general public?

Nina Champion: For that period of time, but when you look at all the evidence, there is none to show that keeping people in prison for longer will have any impact on public safety or on their own rehabilitation. We are concerned, for example, about provisions that keep people in custody for longer and then reduce the amount of time that they spend on licence in the community, which is absolutely vital to enable people to resettle into the community and have that supervision by probation. Reducing that could have an adverse impact on public safety.

The Government have clearly committed to trying to reduce racial inequality in our criminal justice system, but that has to be by actions and not just by words. They have to be able to show evidence that this will have the impact that they want, and there just is not that evidence.

Dr Janes: We at the Howard League also really welcome the provisions in relation to remands for children, but we do think that not getting rid of the rather Dickensian ability to remand women and children for their own protection and welfare is a real missed opportunity, especially now that there will be a requirement to consider welfare before remanding a child. We also welcome the criminal records changes, which are very good, but more can be done to make sure that the rehabilitation period reflects the date at which the offence was committed.

We are incredibly concerned about the cost. The impact assessment shows that the increase in prison time will cost millions of pounds. We are also very concerned about the impact on our prison system. With these proposals, in the next five years the prison population will increase to 100,000, which is unprecedented in our country. Just to put that in context, in only the 1990s we were at 40,000, so that is an absolutely huge increase, and the impact assessment states that that will lead to instability, compound overcrowding, reduce access to rehabilitation, and increase self-harm and violence.

Although covid has absolutely been a challenge for everyone and a tragedy for many, it has given a brief pause in the uptick in the prison population. Not building on that, and putting further strain on the prison system, really is a bit of a missed opportunity.

Dr Bild: I echo a lot of what Nina said on the sentencing provisions. We have concerns that they do protect the public but in only the narrowest of senses—only for those additional months, or perhaps years, that someone spends in custody. If there is a plan to do something with those people while they are in custody for that extra time to make them less likely to reoffend when they come out, we suspect that that may only kick the problem down the road by a few months or years.

We are very keen on the issues around public confidence in the criminal justice system, but we do not necessarily think the Bill will make a great leap in that direction because of the technical nature of many of the changes. What the Bill does do is to make sentencing ever-more complex and complicated.

A pre-requisite for public confidence is public understanding. One of the results of some of these changes will be that it will perhaps be more difficult than ever to really understand what a custodial sentence will mean in practice. There is much more uncertainty about what a length of custody actually means. Overall, it is yet more piecemeal change in sentencing, which further complicates the framework.

[Sarah Champion]

Q First, hello Nina—I have never spoken to another Champion that I am not related to before. My question is for Laura. Will the number of people in prison increase as a result of this Bill?

Dr Janes: Yes, the projections, as I just mentioned, show that it is set to go up to around 100,000. It is absolutely clear that many of the provisions in this Bill will see people spending a lot longer in prison. There is the increase in the minimum term. We know that with the DTO sentences we are likely to see up to 50 children at any one time in custody. The release provisions for the serious offences—four years or more—will go up to two thirds, rather than a half, which goes right back to the point that both Nina and Jonathan have made in terms of less time in the community under supervision, which is important for victims and confidence in the system.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

This is what I do not understand: throughout my career in Parliament I have tried to focus on prevention, because it is cheaper. The bottom line shows that it is much better at the beginning to teach police officers or back room office staff how to identify trauma, how to deal with it and how to get help. That is why I say to the Minister that, within the covenant and with the opportunities she is given to follow through on her own’s party’s commitment to produce the covenant, we need trauma training and the necessary support in black and white in the police covenant.

Police forces have an organisational responsibility to support the wellbeing of their workforce. The College of Policing published a wellbeing framework, which outlines standards to benchmark their wellbeing services, but that is voluntary. The college has also issued specific guidance on responding to trauma in policing and psychological risk management. Let me offer some more facts and stats—people who know me know that I love a statistic. The 2019 police wellbeing survey identified some really worrying mental health data, finding that 67.1% of police officers responding reported post-traumatic stress symptoms that would warrant an evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. That is two thirds of the police. A Police Federation survey of 18,000 members found that

“Attending traumatic and/or distressing incidents”

was one of the top 10 reasons why respondents were having psychological difficulties at work.

Let me pick up on the phrase “psychological difficulties at work”. Such difficulties have an impact on the individual, their colleagues, and the public. I have done an awful lot of work with survivors, predominantly of child abuse but of abuse in general as well. The level of response and empathy that they get from that first police officer tends to dictate how the rest of that process goes and, ultimately, whether they are able to secure the conviction of the perpetrator. If that police officer has undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to access support, what will that first interaction with the victim be? It will be poor. That is not the officer’s fault; it is our fault for not putting the support in place to enable them to identify the issue at the time.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The hon. Lady certainly lives up to her name by standing up for the victims of abuse and those affected in other ways. The police could perhaps learn lessons in how to deal with some of those problems from GCHQ, many of whose officers, including those working in Scarborough, spend many hours looking at online images of child sexual abuse or terrorism. GCHQ is aware of those problems and is on top of them from the very start. Does she agree that the police could learn from GCHQ?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. GCHQ has a large footprint in his constituency, so he has seen at first hand that correct identification and the provision of early intervention and support prevent these issues arising. Unfortunately, in the police force that is a voluntary duty. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to put in the Bill that that needs to be addressed. It is simple, it is cheap, and it involves an hour’s training and signposting to existing resources.

Some 23% of respondents to the Police Federation survey had sought help for their feelings of stress, low mood, anxiety and other difficulties. Let us contrast that with the 67% who were recognised as having undiagnosed PTSD: just 23% of the nearly 70% who had those symptoms sought help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Clause 2, as the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, has outlined, increases the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. We absolutely support that provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood highlighted, the Opposition have been calling for it for years. On Second Reading of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda introduced, he eloquently said:

“An assault on anyone is wrong, but an attack on any emergency worker—whether that is a police constable, a paramedic, an ambulance driver, an accident and emergency doctor or nurse, a fire officer, a prison officer, someone working in search and rescue, or someone working on a lifeboat—is an attack on us all. And when we are all attacked, we all stand firm together.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1103.]

Many Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, were present on Second Reading, and I remember well the huge support for that private Member’s Bill, with many Members wanting to speak.

During the covid pandemic, which has happened since that legislation was passed, there has been a shocking increase in the number of attacks on frontline emergency service workers, with a 31% increase compared with 2019. Over the last five years, attacks on frontline police officers have gone up by 50%. It has been clear through the pandemic that emergency services and shopworkers have been right at the forefront, risking their own health to serve their communities. Many have faced unacceptable attacks as they have worked to keep us safe, from being spat at and punched to being verbally abused and intimidated. Those attacks should be met with swift, meaningful punishment.

As I mentioned earlier, Sergeant Matt Ratana was murdered doing the job that he loved last year. All of us, I hope, would do everything that we can to honour his memory by campaigning to stop assaults on our police as best we can. The NHS figures are disturbing. Between January and July last year, there were more than 1,600 physical assaults on UK ambulance workers. In London, there were 355 physical assaults on ambulance workers and 239 incidents of verbal abuse. I experienced it myself when I rode out with some police officers, and we had to arrest people who were on drugs and being highly abusive. The ambulance workers arrived and were sexually assaulted by the two men. It is a daily occurrence, and we should not accept it.

The Government’s impact assessment states that over 11,250 cases of assault on an emergency worker were proceeded against in 2019, with around 9,050 resulting in a sentence. Of those, 1,900 cases received a fine, 3,600 a community sentence, 950 a suspended sentence and 1,550 an immediate custodial sentence. Of those receiving an immediate custodial sentence, most—67%—were sentenced to three months or less, 27% were given a sentence of three to six months, and only 6% received an immediate custodial sentence of six months or more.

We should pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda for all their work campaigning to achieve the change. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax originally drafted the “Protect the Protectors” Bill and campaigned relentlessly with the Police Federation for its introduction. The Bill was later picked up as a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, and received universal support to be passed into law.

As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda had originally pushed for a two-year maximum sentence in his Bill, but the Government had wanted 12 months, to which he agreed in order to ensure that the Bill passed. It is a shame that the Government did not agree to it at that time and it would be useful to understand what the change in view is down to. There are still concerns around the stronger sentence only applying to convictions in the Crown court, and some in the police have raised concerns that it should come alongside effective sentencing guidance: magistrates should be able to sentence for longer to avoid clogging up the Crown court. Sentencing guidance has not yet been published in relation to section 2 of the 2018 Act, and while the increased sentence is welcome in the Bill, it would be good to hear from the Minister about his plans for new sentencing guidance.

[Mr Goodwill]

Is it also the case that, because we introduced the ability to appeal against lenient sentences, if judges and magistrates do not use the powers in the Bill available to them, it is open to the Government or law officers to challenge those sentences?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It would be good to hear the Minister’s view on that in his response.

To finish my remarks on clause 2, which recognises the bravery of emergency workers and appreciates that there should be increased sentences for those who assault them, the Government could take many other actions that may also reduce the number of assaults against emergency workers. We should not lose sight of them. Being alone on a patrol increases the risk of assault, and that tends to be down to resources. The Government need to tackle that issue. We also have a woefully small amount of evidence as to why assaults are increasing. What is the evidence around what is happening, and why it is happening? What analysis has been done by the Home Office on where these assaults are taking place, and why?

Linked to that is the issue of protective equipment. There has been a big increase in body-worn cameras and spit guards in policing, but what lessons are actually being learned from covid, and from the experience suffered by our police officers and other emergency workers during this time, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect them in the future? In conclusion, clause 2 is a welcome step in the right direction.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

We support clauses 4 to 6, which relate to police driving standards. The Opposition have been calling for some years for proper legal protections for police officers when they pursue suspects on the roads. We know that the police put themselves in incredible danger to ensure that suspects are caught, and they should not be criminalised for doing that job. One of the first events I attended as an MP was an event organised by the Police Federation, and this issue was part of the first conversation that I had with it. I pay tribute to the Police Federation and others who have campaigned for this change.

Clauses 4 to 6 amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that qualified police drivers are compared to what is expected of a competent and careful trained police driver, rather than what is expected of competent and careful drivers, for the offences of dangerous and careless driving. It makes a lot of sense to give the police these added protections when they are driving for police purposes.

For those who may have concerns about these clauses, it is important to consider the context in which this change is being made. The Independent Office for Police Conduct publishes an annual report on deaths during or following police contact. In 2019-20, 24 people died in road traffic incidents involving the police: 19 were pursuit related; three were emergency response related; and the two remaining incidents were classed as other police traffic accidents. The number of road traffic fatalities involving the police in 2019-20 was the fifth lowest figure since records began in the early 2000s.

The Police Federation has been campaigning since 2012 for the skills of police officers to be considered in dangerous and careless driving cases. John Apter of the Police Federation, giving us evidence last week, said:

“All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 22, Q34.]

The Police Federation says that the

“current legislation leaves drivers vulnerable”,

and that subjecting drivers to conduct and criminal investigations as a result of being held to the same standards as a normal driver caused significant distress and impeded their careers. The Home Office’s review of the law, guidance and training governing police pursuit in September 2019 concluded that it is not appropriate to hold officers to the same standards as regular guidance, and set out to consult on possible changes.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that police forces have in place strict guidance on how police officers can use their driving skills? In particular, if a hot pursuit were to put members of the public at risk, they would have to desist from the pursuit.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is right; there are many other processes in place for when an accident occurs. As soon as an accident occurred, the IOPC would investigate why it happened. Measures are in place to ensure that the police do not do things that we would not expect of them. The amendment aims to make sure that it is very clear what is expected of them and what is not. When I spoke to the National Police Chiefs Council lead on those issues, it was clear to me that we have to enable the police to do what they need to do without fearing that they will be taken to court. There also need to be checks and balances to ensure that they do not overstep the mark.

The Government review was welcome. The IOPC concluded:

“Any change to legislation must not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermining the ability to hold the police to account effectively”.

That is very important. The change is welcome; it is not about the police driving without fear of scrutiny, but it is important that police are not prosecuted for doing what they have been trained to do.

It is also important to discuss an issue related to clause 4, which a number of police officers have raised with me. We tried to craft some amendments around this, but it was problematic, so I am just raising the issue. There was a concern that the number of officers who have undertaken the full level of driver training varies between forces, because there are various different levels of driving training, and what officers have will depend on where they are. Officers who do not receive the full training worry that they will be hesitant to do what may be required of them in the circumstances. For instance, if they were on a motorway and needed to ram a vehicle in order to save someone’s life on the road, would an officer take that risk if they could end up subject to a criminal investigation?

The police clearly have to strike a fine balance in the circumstances they are presented with. I have no doubt that, in the main, they will do what is expected of them. Subsection (3) states that

“the designated person is to be regarded as driving dangerously… only if)—

(a) the way the person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, and

(b) it would be obvious to such a competent and careful constable that driving in that way would be dangerous.”

Can the Minister provide some assurance? If a police officer who has done the basic level of police driver training finds themselves in a situation where they have to respond to an emergency incident that would require higher levels of training, how would they be protected?

On a matter related to clauses 4 to 6, the College of Policing has said that it would be “highly desirable” for police vehicles involved in pursuits always to be fitted with black boxes, which monitor the performance of drivers. Some forces, such as the Metropolitan police, fit all vehicles with those devices, but that is not the case everywhere. Could the Minister look into that? The cost might be prohibitive, but what would it take for all vehicles used in police pursuits to have those black boxes? What safeguards will be in place to protect drivers who have not had the highest level of driver training? Will that lead to more IOPC and court referrals, or can we be comfortable that the clauses as drafted will provide that protection?

--- Later in debate ---

The risk of homelessness massively increases someone’s risk of exploitation and abuse, and a safe and stable home is a key element in preventing and reducing violence, particularly youth violence. However, people at risk of serious violence face considerable challenges in accessing suitable alternative housing. For families already living in secure social housing, moves within and between landlords’ housing stock can be a critically effective method of protecting children and young people from violence and exploitation. It is preferable to having to end a secure tenancy in order to move into insecure, poor-quality and expensive temporary accommodation provided under homelessness legislation.

[Mr Goodwill]

When the hon. Lady talks about poor-quality housing, would she say that some of the appalling housing in Croydon—for example, in the Regina Road block—is an example of the sort of housing that we should be trying to improve?

[Sarah Jones]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his political jibe. He is correct to say there are examples of bad housing in Croydon, as there are in other parts of the country. It has a massively serious effect on people’s lives. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Croydon South muttering about it from a sedentary position.

I will move on to the issue that we are talking about. When an urgent move is required because of gang violence, temporary accommodation is often the only realistic option. The law currently does not prioritise families in this situation, in contrast with the requirement for victims of domestic abuse to be treated as a priority for rehousing. Section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1996 gives victims automatic priority need, so that victims fleeing domestic abuse are moved urgently and thus protected. That is not the case when the threat of violence is external, which means that families are often forced to choose between giving up a secure tenancy and making a homeless application to their local authority, or keeping their secure tenancy and staying somewhere where they are in danger. The child safeguarding practice review published last year notes a case where a family moved back to an area where they were at risk in order to prevent the loss of their right to permanent housing. Within months, their son was killed.

The problems do not stop there. Evidence from practitioners shows how people at risk of violence who approach their local authorities are often not given adequate support due to their not being categorised as priority need under section 189(1) of the Housing Act. Youth workers who work with victims of gang violence often try to identify mental or physical health needs in the family in order to create a workaround. This shows that the system is not responding to the needs of victims of violence because of their status as victims. Support workers at New Horizon Youth Centre in London state that when young people are found in priority need, it is often as a result of any mental health conditions that they have managed to have diagnosed during the centre’s work with them following a serious incident of violence—it is not on the basis of being a victim or being at risk of such violence. In most cases, there is police evidence of risk, but the support workers have found that this is not enough to secure a positive priority need decision.

Kate Bond, the youth outreach project manager at New Horizon Youth Centre, explains: “We have seen so many cases where violence or the threat of violence is rejected as a reason for young people to be seen in priority need under the Housing Act. We have cases where even though there is clear evidence that someone’s life is at risk—not only because of their current injuries, hospital letters and police reports, but also proof from a range of other relevant services—they are not found in priority need. Too often, we end up having to pay for these young people in emergency accommodation and spend a long time gathering proof under other grounds for priority need, keeping the young person in limbo. Traumatised young people are further demotivated by this process and the sense that their lives being at risk is not enough to secure them somewhere safe to live. This continues to put lives and communities at unnecessary risk. However, even that threshold for proof required by local authorities before they will place young people in temporary accommodation can be difficult to reach. Often, for example, young people cannot go to their GP because it is in an area where they feel unsafe, so securing medical proof becomes more challenging and the diagnosis of mental health conditions more difficult.”

Under sections 177(1) and 177(1A) of the Housing Act, a person is legally homeless if violence or the threat of violence means that they cannot be reasonably expected to remain in their current accommodation, but the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities currently provides no guidance for local authorities on how to consider whether an applicant might be in priority need because their current home puts them at risk of gang violence, harassment or grooming. Currently, there is only general advice on the assessment of violence in paragraph 8.36, whereas the assessment of domestic abuse is dealt with in some detail by the statutory guidance. The guidance also says that a shortage of housing could be taken into account when considering whether a family should be moved.

Housing providers such as local authorities or housing associations may also hold critical information that can be used as evidence to support the homelessness application, safeguarding, or police investigations. They may be able to support young people and families to access alternative accommodation. Practitioners are reporting, however, that housing representatives are often not included in relevant case forums and discussions on families at risk of harm. Similarly, when people fleeing violence present at their local authority for rehousing, there is currently no duty on the local authority to seek information from the police to ascertain the level of risk when assessing the housing application.

As I said, amendments 50 to 62, and new clauses 28 and 29, were drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow in collaboration with the co-chairs of the Housing Law Practitioners Association and Garden Court Chambers, and with the backing of many organisations such as Centrepoint, New Horizons Youth Centre, Shelter, Crisis, Barnardo’s, the Big Issue Foundation, St Basils, Catch-22, Redthread, Homeless Link, Nacro, the Revolving Doors Agency, Fair Trials and the St Giles Trust.

New clause 28 would ensure that we learn from best practice of housing support services for victims of domestic violence, and that those who are at risk of violence owing to gang behaviour are prioritised for rehousing away from harm. For children and adults affected by and at risk of serious violence, seeking support to secure a safe place to live can be extremely difficult. Evidence from practitioners shows how young people, care leavers, people with multiple needs, and families facing threats of violence are not given adequate support when approaching their local authorities to seek help moving out of harmful situations because, despite meeting the threshold for vulnerability, given that they have fled violence or threats of violence, they are not seen as in priority need. In many cases, they do not receive the initial duties and assessment to which they are entitled under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. New clause 28 is designed to remove that hurdle and set outs clearly that anyone at risk of violence is in priority need, whether the violence takes place inside or outside the home.

New clause 29 would ensure that the current homelessness code of guidance is updated to take into account the specific needs of those fleeing gang violence and exploitation. Serious cases reviews have shown that the current guidance is not sufficient and young people are paying the price with their lives. Victims of serious violence are often forced to choose between remaining in an area where they are at risk or making a homeless application and giving up a secure tenancy. In the financial year 2019-20, more than 7,000 households were recognised as being at risk of or experiencing non-domestic violence and abuse and seeking homelessness support. It is right that the departmental guidance provides specific guidance for people in that situation.

Homelessness and housing precarity are significant contributing factors to children and adults becoming vulnerable to violence as they respond to offers of accommodation from those seeking to exploit them. Prevention of that trend and early intervention to reduce the harm they may face requires their housing needs to be met quickly and appropriately. The current homelessness code of guidance highlights certain vulnerabilities faced by groups such as young people, care leavers and victims of trafficking, who should be considered as part of the housing application, but there is little guidance around young people at risk of violence and exploitation. By enhancing the current code of guidance so that local authorities take into account the needs of people at risk from serious violence, the Government would ensure that the needs of that vulnerable group specifically are considered by local housing authorities to protect them from further risk of violence. Amendments 50 to 62 would ensure that registered social landlords are involved and consulted in local efforts to reduce serious violence, and that there is timely co-operation between the police and local housing authorities to prevent serious violence.

Part 2 of the Bill outlines the model for multi-agency working to prevent serious violence. The horrific cases in the serious case reviews tell us that there is no effective multi-agency response to preventing serious violence that does not include housing. These amendments will ensure that registered social landlords are included in the new duty and ensure that there is timely information sharing between the police and RSLs for the purpose of preventing serious violence. By supporting effective multi-agency working between all partners, the Government can ensure that housing is considered as an essential part of a comprehensive public health approach to tackling and preventing the serious use of violence.

As I have said, there is provision in law and in practice for people fleeing domestic violence to have a route out of that violent situation, through their local authority and the definition of priority needs. There is not the same route out for those at risk of gang violence in their area, and I have seen the consequences of that. These amendments would put those at risk of serious violence on the same footing as those at risk of domestic violence. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

As a former Children’s Minister, I know that there is no direct correlation between funding and outcomes. Indeed, some of the most cost-effective local authorities in terms of children’s services are those that do not use a lot of agency work, which is cheaper than some of the least effective, which tend to spend more in some cases.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I can provide the evidence that maps those areas that have made the largest cuts to youth work and the areas that have seen the largest increase in violence. There was not a direct causation, but there was a pattern and a trend. Although these things are not absolute, the evidence for every local authority shows that there was an impact. Youth work is known to be effective as an adult intervention with young people who perhaps do not have parental involvement in the way that we would want.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but often it is the local authorities that are failing, with a big backlog of work, that find they cannot recruit, and therefore have to rely on agency social workers and foster carers. That means they are spending a lot more money. Some of the better ones, such as North Yorkshire, have very few agency workers because they can keep it in house and delivery it cost-effectively.

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, that is a separate point that the right hon. Gentleman is right to make. Agency workers are not invested in the organisation they work for; they do not know the area; they are more expensive and often not as effective. My point is that the significant reduction in funding for local authorities will inevitably have an impact on their ability to implement this duty. I hope that the Minister and the Home Office will push forward the argument for more funding for local authorities.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eighth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

I will be happy to withdraw my remark when the shadow Minister joins us in supporting the clause. If he does so, of course I will withdraw it.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Surely when something is stolen, damaged or desecrated, it is about not just its monetary value but the effect on the victim. In this case, the victim could be the children or grandchildren of the person commemorated on that war memorial. A stolen photograph album has no monetary value, but the actual value to the family is very strong.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is exactly the purpose of the clause. The monetary value, the £5,000, does not reflect the profound emotional damage that can be caused when something like a war memorial is desecrated.

The shadow Minister asked how it will be decided whether a matter is heard in the Crown court or in the magistrates court. As he rightly said, the defendant always has the right of election for an either-way offence but, generally, the allocation decision is set out in the allocation guidelines of 2016. A decision is based on whether the anticipated sentence will exceed the magistrates’ sentencing powers—if the magistrates think that it might exceed their sentencing power, they will send up to the Crown court—or if the case is of unusual legal or factual complexity.

There is therefore a flexible system for deciding where a case is heard. Some of the cases might be heard in the Crown court and some in the magistrates court, depending on the facts of the case, so by no means does it follow that everything will end up in the Crown court. It is true that the number of anticipated offences is low— between 10 and 60 a year—but we are talking about acts that desecrate the memory of servicemen and women. I hope that that the Committee can agree on that in supporting the clause.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Ninth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Bambos Charalambous]

Not all demonstrations are successful, but that does not mean that people should not protest.

Clause 55 allows the police to place any necessary condition on a public assembly, as they can do now with a public procession. Clause 56 removes the need for an organiser or participants to have knowingly breached a condition, and it increases the maximum sentences for the offence. Clause 60 imposes conditions on one-person protests. Clauses 54 to 56, and clause 60, would make significant changes to the police powers, contained in the Public Order Act 1986, to respond to protests.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned one-person protests. Would he include in that the unacceptable behaviour of Labour’s Scarborough Borough Councillor Theresa Norton, who on 1 May sat in the middle of St Nicholas Street in Scarborough and caused widespread disruption to people going about their everyday business?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I am not aware of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about or the circumstances that brought it about. Clearly, people need to be respectful of the people around them when they protest, and they must do so in a lawful way.

Taken together, clauses 54 to 56 and clause 60 make amendments to the 1986 Act that will significantly expand the types of protest on which the police could impose conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The people who want to impose these conditions are the very people who the protesters are trying to change; they do not like that, which is why they want to impose these conditions upon them. It is a suppression of people’s rights.

[Mr Goodwill]

The protest in Scarborough was all about building a third runway at Heathrow and climate change. The holidaymakers taking advantage of the first opportunity to come to the coast were not people directly responsible for making that decision. Their lives were being disrupted and they were not the people directly responsible for the issue that Councillor Norton was concerned about.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, I cannot comment on that individual protest, but the issue of climate change is a very important one; it affects us all, irrespective of where we live. The issue of a third runway may have also been about a wider issue that would have affected everybody, irrespective of where they live. As I say, I cannot comment on that individual protest, but we have to appreciate that certain protests have a wider significance than just the locality where they happen.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and that demonstration is now going to be in the parliamentary record, so I think the person making the demonstration will have achieved her objective.

[Mr Goodwill]

I have to say that the correspondence I received in relation to this protest was not from people sympathetic to it. The correspondence was from people whose lives were being disrupted and who wished that something could have been done more quickly to stop that one person from sitting in the middle of the street, disrupting the whole town centre and affecting people’s jobs and livelihoods in Scarborough.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. However, if the purpose of the protest was to create greater publicity for the issue, then the person making the protest will have achieved her objective. That is not to say that disruption was not caused by the person making the protest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are the decision makers in this Parliament. We are the ones who make decisions that impact on people’s lives, so if we do not hear and are not aware of the protests, how will that change be brought about?

[Mr Goodwill]

Surely the point is that as elected representatives, it is our responsibility to cast our votes in this place on behalf of those people. If a protest outside prevents us from coming here, that is acting against democracy, not in favour of it.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Yes, we should be allowed to come here. Nobody has prevented MPs from coming to Parliament since the civil war, and that right has existed and will continue to exist. We have the right to be here as elected representatives, and nothing should infringe on that right. That does not mean, however, that people should not be allowed to protest outside Parliament. We should be able to hear their voices and hear what they have to say. They should be allowed to make that protest.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The point I am trying to make is that many of us drive here from distant parts of the country, which was particularly the case during lockdown. If we could not drive through Parliament Square and arrive at this building, we could not do the job on behalf of our constituents. That is tantamount to people blocking a polling station on polling day. I am sure he would condemn that as well.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I use public transport—I am a London MP, so it is easier for me to do that to get here—but clearly MPs should have access to Parliament. I am not disputing that at all because we need to be able to get here to act on behalf of our constituents, but I disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I have already made a number of interventions and do not intend to make an extremely long speech. I want to make some points about what I consider to be wholly unnecessary proposed changes to our right to protest in this country. While it is nice and quiet in this Committee Room while we consider the Bill line by line, it is certainly not the case that these proposals have been greeted quietly in any sense of the word outside in the society on which the Bill seeks to impose its new arrangements.

This part of the Bill has attracted extremely, broad, wide and deep condemnation across a number of sectors. It is important to bear that in mind when we consider whether the Bill offers a reasonable balance. There always has to be a balance between the right to protest and our rights as individual members of society in this democracy, and the wider, broader interests of society in getting on with its business. That has always been a balance that the Government of the day in any democracy have to strike. There is no difference between our current Government seeking to strike that balance now and any Government in the past seeking to do that, because there does have to be a balance.

The question is whether or not the proposals in the Bill that are being brought forward by the Minister are necessary and proportionate; whether or not they actually strike that balance; whether or not our existing arrangements, which have been ongoing for some time, are wholly inadequate enough to need altering. I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that the Bill, as proposed, would make it harder to protest. The question, then, is this: if one accepts that there is a need to alter the situation—which I do not—are these proposals proportionate and do they do what is necessary, even from the point of view of the Government?

The first thing that we need to take into account, as I have said, is that there is a broad set of people and civil society organisations—academics, former Home Secretaries, police chiefs and lots of individuals—who have signed petitions to say that this is entirely wrong and an unwarranted interference in our democratic freedoms. The Bill has been condemned by hundreds of civil society organisations and 700 or so legal scholars who urged the Prime Minister to ditch draconian restrictions on the right to protest, as was reported in the Independent. Some of those 700 legal scholars might be renowned for being able to interpret the proposed wording of the statute in front of us. To find 700 legal scholars saying that this is draconian and unnecessary is something we should consider and take into account.

Petitions organised by various civil society organisations—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham referred to at least one of them—have received more than half a million signatures from fellow citizens, calling for this part of the Bill to be removed. That is significant dissent that should be considered and taken into account. Former Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers have expressed concern from across the political parties, not all of them opponents of the current Government and some from within their own ranks. They have expressed, at the very least, concern about the extent of the proposed measures.

The starting point ought to be our democratic rights as individuals to freedom of expression and assembly, protected at present by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. The fundamental provision is the right to say what one wants and protest. Obviously, that is always subject to the law, but the starting point is that those rights should be infringed or curtailed only where necessary and proportionate. The presumption ought to be that we protect those rights. The authorities in a democracy such as ours that signed up to the European convention on human rights should have a positive obligation to facilitate those rights for individual citizens.

We have all come across protests that we do not agree with. Members on the Government side might have come across more protests that they do not agree with than I might have. That does not give us the right to ban them. In fact, it is an essential part of our democracy that we should facilitate such activities, particularly if we do not agree with them.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she point out where the Bill differentiates between protests we agree with and those we do not agree with?

[Maria Eagle]

I am not saying that the Bill does. I am not looking at any particular Member, but I know the attitude of some Members is somewhat determined by whether they agree with the protest in front of them. I have been inconvenienced by protests I agreed with and protests that I did not; the inconvenience is the same. Because of the democratic nature of our society, we ought to try to protect the right to protest and freedom of expression, and subject them only to necessary and proportionate restrictions. We should not let our individual natural feelings impinge on our views on whether they are proportionate and necessary.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady makes some reasonable points, but would she agree that, in the case of some of the Extinction Rebellion protests, people who were possibly sympathetic to their views were turned against them by the disruption and problems caused by people climbing on the roofs of trains or gluing themselves to buildings?

[Maria Eagle]

I do agree with that point. One might then have an argument with the organisers about whether the nature of those protests is appropriate. I still do not think that it is a reason to remove people’s fundamental right to protest just because some protests are inconvenient, annoying and noisy.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Tenth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I cannot add to what I said earlier. These are all reserved matters.

I move on to public assemblies. I will explain why it is necessary for the police to be able to place the same conditions on public assemblies as they can on public processions. The case for the changes in clause 55 was made by Her Majesty’s inspector Matt Parr in his report on policing protest, published in March. The report included the following observation:

“there have been some conspicuously disruptive protests in recent years, both static (assemblies) and moving (processions). Protests are fluid, and it is not always possible to make this distinction. Some begin as assemblies and become processions, and vice versa. The practical challenges of safely policing a protest are not necessarily greater in the case of processions than in the case of assemblies, so this would not justify making a wider range of conditions available for processions than for assemblies.”

It is clear that the challenges of safely policing a protest are not necessarily greater for processions than they are for assemblies. The clause will therefore enable the police to impose conditions such as start times on public assemblies, and prevent excessive noise levels.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, contrary to what the Opposition say, the measures are about facilitating peaceful protest, not stopping protest? Obviously, if a protest breaches other people’s right to carry out their normal lives, that is different, but this is about making sure that protests can take place.

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. This is about ensuring that the rights that we have spoken about so far are protected, and that the integral balance of the social contract is maintained. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The police already have the power to impose any necessary conditions on marches. If it is acceptable for the police to impose any such conditions on processions, as they have been able to do since the 1930s, it is difficult to see the basis for the Opposition’s objection to affording equivalent powers to impose conditions on an assembly when it presents an equivalent public order risk.

In his evidence, Chief Constable Harrington said words to this effect—my apologies to Hansard: “We asked for consistency between processions and assembly, which this Bill does.” The police will impose those conditions only where they are necessary and proportionate, complying with their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. In fairness, Chief Constable Harrington set out the care and training that the police receive to ensure that they can carry out their obligations carefully.

Clause 56 closes the loophole in the offence of failing to comply with a condition attached to a procession or assembly. When the police impose conditions on a protest to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, they ensure that protesters are made aware of those conditions through various means. Those can include communicating with protesters via loudspeakers or handing out written leaflets.

Some protesters take active measures, such as covering their ears and tearing up leaflets without reading them, to ensure that they are not aware—or to complain that they were not aware—of the conditions being placed. Should they go on to breach the conditions, they will avoid conviction as, under current law, an offence is committed only if a protester knowingly fails to comply with the condition.

Clause 56 will change the threshold for the offence to include where a protester ought to have known of the conditions imposed, closing the loophole in the current law. That is a commonly used fault element in criminal law—indeed, I note that the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Rotherham use it in new clause 23, which provides for a new street harassment offence. The police will continue to ensure that protesters are made aware of the conditions, as they currently do. The onus on the prosecution would change from having to show that an individual was fully aware of conditions, to showing that the police took all reasonable steps to notify them. As I said earlier, the standards and burdens of proof apply, as they do in any other criminal case: it is for the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

This particular proposal was examined by the policing inspectorate and it is again worth quoting from its report in March. It said:

“Our view is that the fault element in sections 12(4) and (5) and sections 14(4) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986 is currently set too high. The loophole in the current law could be closed with a slight shift in the legal test that is applied to whether protesters should have known about the conditions imposed on them. On balance, we see no good reason not to close this loophole.”

The clause will also increase the maximum penalties for offences under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Due to the increasingly disruptive tactics used by protesters, existing sentences are no longer proportionate to the harm that can be caused. Organisers of public processions and assemblies who go on to breach conditions placed by the police, as well as individuals who incite others to breach conditions, will see maximum custodial sentences increase from three to six months. Others who breach conditions will see maximum penalties increase from level 3 to level 4 on the standard scale, which are respectively set at £1,000 and £2,500.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

That serves to demonstrate the dynamic nature of different forms of protest. If a decision is to be made during the course of a protest, it will be made by a senior officer of inspector rank or above, on the ground and assessing the situation. Let me try to provide a practical example. The inspector may assess the situation in Hyde Park, then walk through to an area where there is lots of high-density housing and consider that the circumstances there are different. It is about being able to react to circumstances as they change and evolve in the course of a protest. That is why we are trying to bring consistency between processions and assemblies—because of the dynamic nature of protests—but it will be for the senior officer, working of course with his or her colleagues, to assess the factors laid out in subsection (3).

The police will impose conditions on the use of noise only in the exceptional circumstances where noise causes unjustifiable disruption or impact. I emphasise that in doing so they will have to have regard to the number of people affected and the intensity and duration of the noise, and act compatibly with the rights of freedom of expression and so on within the convention.

The shadow Minister prayed in aid the non-legislative recommendations from HMIC. I want to place on the record that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a programme board to consider and implement those. I hope that helps.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the Minister agree that not only is it a judgment or decision for the police to make in this situation, but that if a prosecution were to follow, the Director of Public Prosecutions and ultimately a jury would decide whether, on balance, they thought a breach of these provisions had occurred?

[Victoria Atkins]

Exactly right. The police will first have to satisfy themselves and the CPS that a charge should be brought, and from that all the usual safeguards and standards that we expect in the criminal justice system will apply. For example, the CPS will have to apply the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to the public interest and evidential tests. We will then have the mechanisms in the trial process—perhaps a submission at half-time by defence counsel if they feel the evidence is not there. There are many mechanisms that apply in criminal trials up and down the country every single day, and those mechanisms will be available for offences under the Bill as they are for any other criminal offence.

I have been asked for clarification of the terms: annoyance, alarm, distress and unease. Many of those terms are already used in the Public Order Act 1986 and in common law. They are well understood by the judiciary, and the Law Commission—this is particularly in reference to the public nuisance point, which we will come on to in a moment—recommends retaining the word “annoyance”, as it provides continuity with previous legal cases and is well understood in this context. We understand the concerns about this, but as I say, through the introduction of these words, we are trying to be consistent with the approach that has long applied in the Public Order Act.

It is necessary to apply the measure in relation to noise to single-person protests because they can, of course, create just as much noise through the use of amplification equipment as a large protest using such equipment. Again, the police will be able to impose conditions on a single-person protest for reasons relating only to noise, not for any other reason.

Forgive me: I have just been corrected regarding the briefing I received about the rank of the officer at the scene. It is the most senior officer at the scene, so there is no minimum rank, but it is anticipated in the use of the word that it will be an officer of great seniority. Any protest on which it may be necessary to impose conditions is likely to have an officer present of at least the rank of inspector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, Mr McCabe, I shall confine my remarks to clause 57, which deals with “Obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament”. I will take up the challenge on annoyance when it comes to clause 59.

Clause 57 delivers a clear recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Its 2019 report, “Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs”, refers to

“unimpeded access to the Palace of Westminster for all who have business in either House, or wish to meet their representatives”,

and to how vital that is. The report continues:

“Even though there is a special legal regime for the area around Parliament, it is clear that those responsible for policing and controlling that area have not always given the need for access without impediment or harassment the importance it requires. This must change.”

We are acting on the recommendations of the Joint Committee and, through clause 57, strengthening and extending the Palace of Westminster controlled area in relation to section 142A of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

[Mr Goodwill]

Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that, more than a century ago, precedent was set by the grandfather of the current Lord Montagu? He arrived in a motorcar and the police tried to prevent it from entering the precincts of the Palace, but he insisted that it came in. Precedent was therefore set well over a century ago at the dawn of the age of the motorcar, and I hope that that precedent will be followed.

[Victoria Atkins]

That is a wonderful example to explain how that fundamental right of our democracy was introduced. I note, of course, that my right hon. Friend has great knowledge and expertise in all matters vehicular, to which I defer.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

I stand to speak out against clauses 61 to 63. In doing so, I am reflecting the views of the Gypsy and Traveller community, the police, and organisations as diverse as the Ramblers Association and Liberty.

I want to start by thanking Abbie Kirkby from Friends, Families & Travellers for all its help on part 4 of the Bill. Part 4—clauses 61 to 63—would amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to create a new offence of

“residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.

It would also amend the police powers associated with unauthorised encampments in the Act to lower the threshold at which they can be used, allow the police to remove unauthorised encampments on or partly on highways, and prohibit unauthorised encampments that are moved from a site from returning within 12 months.

Like the clauses we have just debated on public order, this part of the Bill is controversial and has generated a number of organised campaigns in opposition to it, including an e-petition that garnered 134,932 signatures. The petition called the Government’s proposed criminal offence “extreme, illiberal and unnecessary”.

[Mr Goodwill]

Would any of the people who live near one of these illegal camps have signed that petition?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I do not know who signed the petition, but I am sure it is available. The right hon. Gentleman will have to explore the petition himself to see who signed it.

A broad coalition, from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to Liberty, from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities to the Ramblers Association and from the police to Shelter, is united in the view that the proposals put forward by the Government would be wrong and unhelpful, and go against our basic rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

I agree that there is no excuse for antisocial behaviour or criminal activity, such as fly-tipping, which is wrong and needs to stop. Equally, where sites are provided, they should be made use of.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must listen to local people in this respect? When sites were proposed in Stockton-on-Tees in 2014, there were 565 individual representations against them, four petitions signed by 850 people and a letter of objection supported by 55 neighbours, so even in Stockton-on-Tees, the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North, there is great opposition to having these Traveller sites in their communities.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Therein lies the problem: many people do not want to have Travellers anywhere near them, and that is partly why there are so few sites. If more sites were made available, that would potentially solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Trying to describe this as some sort of inherent prejudice misses the point, in that the activities of some of these people are what cause concern to a community—for example, leaving a load of rubbish behind on a lay-by. In Whitby, we get a lot of Travellers coming for the regatta, and it is quite common for restaurateurs to complain to me that they just walk out of restaurants without paying the bill, or haggle over the price and pay only half, and there is nothing they can do about it. That is the problem. It is based not on inherent prejudice, but on actual experiences of dealing with some of these people. They may be only a small minority of the travelling population, but they do tend to spoil it for the rest.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The situation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions would not be caught by the clause in this Bill anyway. On his wider point, it is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If there is a problem, there is legislation currently available to deal with it. This is entirely unnecessary, and it ends up criminalising a community when the powers to deal with the problem already exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The Minister will be aware that quite often, this land is agricultural land, which is needed for farmers and landowners to graze their stock. In a dry season, as it was earlier in this season, the last thing that farmers want is land that they can use for their own livestock being taken over and possibly used for the grazing of the horses of people who have come on to their land.

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course, it will not just be a question of horses. My farmers have the pleasure of farming some of the greatest, highest-quality agricultural land in the country, and they go to great efforts to ensure that their arable fields are ploughed, sowed, and treated to ensure optimum production of crop yields in each and every field that they farm. The use of a large vehicle—or, indeed, many large vehicles—which is not farm machinery and therefore not driven by the person who tends to a field going on to that field can cause damage. At this time of year, when driving around agricultural areas, one will see entrances to fields blockaded with all sorts of large items to try to ensure that they are not trespassed upon in the way that we are trying to tackle in the Bill.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes, that is very much the case. These organisations all make the same point: we are limiting the judges’ discretion. We are limiting the discretion of the individual who best knows the case, as they have actually heard the case, so it is certainly worrying. In fact, in the sentencing White Paper, the Government note that “concerns have been raised”, and that some repeat offenders are receiving too-lenient sentences, but they fall short of naming a single body that supports that view.

In the same vein, rather than presenting the evidence for change, the White Paper highlights only a single statistic in relation to those convicted of a burglary who receive a sentence lower than the minimum three-year term. I am sure I do not have to remind the Minister that that is as single statistic relating to a single offence out of his list of four. I ask him a very simple question: what evidence has he brought to the Committee today to show that judges have been unduly lenient when sentencing repeat offenders in relation to the importation of class A drugs, possession of a knife or offensive weapon or threatening a person with a blade or offensive weapon in public?

The second of the Opposition’s concerns is how the proposed changes to clause 100 will further entrench the already shameful levels of racial disparity in our criminal justice system. As the Minister is all too aware, since the Lammy review was published in September 2017, racial disparity in the criminal justice system has got considerably worse. The statistics speak for themselves. Black offenders are 26% more likely than white offenders to be remanded in custody, while the figure for black women is 29% more likely. Offenders from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are 81% more likely than white offenders to be sent to prison for indictable offences, even when factoring in higher not guilty plea rates. Over one quarter—27%—of people in prison are from a minority ethnic group, despite the fact that they make up 14% of the total population of England and Wales. If our prison population reflected the ethnic make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison—a truly staggering figure.

That is before we even begin to touch on disproportionality in the youth system, which is even more pronounced. For the first time, young people from a BAME background now make up 51%—over half—of those in custody, despite that group making up only 14% of the population. The proportion of black children who are arrested, cautioned or sentenced is now twice what it was 10 years ago, and the proportion of black children on remand in youth custody has increased to over a third.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was asked by the then Conservative Government to carry out his review, he did so in the belief that that Government, and successive Governments, would implement the recommendations he made. Sadly, that was not the case. At the last count, fewer than 10 of the 35 recommendations had been fully implemented. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that is still the case today and, if so, why the Government have made so little progress on that in the last four years.

The picture emerging from this Government is that they do not care about reducing racial disparities in our criminal justice system, which is not an accusation I make lightly. Statement after statement recognising the disparities and promising change appears to be no more than lip service. Worse still, many of the measures in the Bill will further entrench racial inequality in the criminal justice system—one of them being the introduction of clause 100. It is abundantly clear that the clause will have a disproportionate impact on offenders from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background.

We know from a Government report published in 2016 that for drugs offences the odds of receiving a prison sentence were around 240% higher for black, Asian and minority ethnic offenders than for white offenders. Even the equalities impact assessment that accompanies the Bill acknowledges an over-representation of certain ethnic groups and the increased likelihood of their being sentenced to custody and given a longer sentence. It states:

“We recognise that some individuals with protected characteristics are likely to be over-represented in the groups of people this policy will affect, by virtue of the demographics of the existing offender population.”

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The figures the hon. Gentleman quotes are of great concern. Is he suggesting that judges show bias and discrimination in the sentences they give?

[Alex Cunningham]

I am not. The point I am making is that the Government are driving an agenda that will result in more black, Asian and ethnic minority people ending up in the criminal justice system and suffering even greater sentences.

The Government’s own equalities impact assessment goes on:

“BAME individuals appear to have high representation in the Class A drug trafficking cohort and possession of or threatening with a blade… As a result, the proposal may put people with these protected characteristics at a particular disadvantage when compared to persons who do not share these characteristics since they may be more likely to be given a custodial sentence and serve longer sentences than before.”

The Minister could do no better than looking to America to see how three-strike drug laws have had a horrific impact on disproportionality rates in the criminal justice system. As he will no doubt be aware, the three-strikes crime Bill that was introduced by Bill Clinton in the 1990s has been roundly criticised by all sides of the American political spectrum. Democrats, Republicans and even Bill Clinton himself have spoken of how the Bill was a grave mistake that contributed to overpopulated prisons and a mass incarceration of BAME offenders in particular.

What makes this all the more astonishing is that this Government have gone to some lengths in recent times to state their commitment to reducing racial disparity in the justice system. In his foreword to the latest update on tackling race disparity in the criminal justice system, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that addressing the over-representation of people from ethnic and racial minorities was a personal focus for him—that was very welcome. Will the Minister explain, then, why the Government chose not to undertake a full equalities impact assessment of how measures in the Bill could have a detrimental impact on minority groups? Given that many of the measures in the sentencing White Paper involve serious sentence uplifts, it is absolutely critical that the Government fully understand how those from minority backgrounds could be disproportionately impacted. As I have explained, failing to do so runs the risk of further exacerbating the already horrendous disparities that we see in the system today. Is the Minister content to see such disparities widen even further, or will he outline today just what the Government will do to address this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very valid points. Does he agree that this issue is also about middle-class people taking illegal drugs and fuelling this terrible trade?

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, and I have given his constituency its full title—how on earth could I ever forget Whitby, when it is one of my favourite destinations for a day out? I am sure he will understand why that is the case. For me, this issue is about how we tackle the guys with the briefcases and not just the young men on the streets? How do we make sure that we deal with organised crime? We have seen some great results recently in my own constituency and across the Cleveland police area, where there have been raids on individual houses and the police found large amounts of drugs. However, those drugs are finding their way in through Teesport and through the Tyneside ports as well. We are failing to get to the people who are driving the entire trade and we need to do much, much more to do so.

With the National Crime Agency currently prioritising cyber-crime, child sexual exploitation and terrorism, and the Serious Violence Taskforce having been disbanded recently, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how anything in clause 100 will tackle serious organised criminality.

To conclude, the Opposition have deep concerns about the introduction of the power in clause 100. We worry that it has been introduced without an evidential basis, without consultation with impacted groups, and without a full equalities impact assessment. Even more importantly, we worry that it will further entrench the already shameful levels of racial disparity in our criminal justice system while failing to tackle the underlying causes of the crimes that we have been discussing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will address the issues that I have raised.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham in that there is a variation in the enthusiasm that some of those who conduct this work display, on both sides. I was told, for example, that a lad who came from a farming family had thrown his back into it very strongly and was encouraging others to join him. I would add that we do consult with the local community, and many of the jobs that are done in my constituency are at the behest of either a local authority or other local groups.

[Chris Philp]

Wonderful. We would like to see the kind of consultation that already takes place in Scarborough and Whitby take place across the country as a whole, and that is precisely the intention behind clause 130. Where Scarborough has led, the rest of the nation, thanks to this clause, will follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131

Youth Remand

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

Police have the powers to put a marker on the file of sex offenders at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or Her Majesty’s Passport Office, so that, if a name change comes up through their systems, the police would be informed. This is useful, as a driver’s licence or a passport is required for a DBS check. It is worth noting, though, that DBS does not undertake any background checks on whether a name change has occurred. It is only the link with the Passport Office, if fraud is found.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am astounded to hear what the hon. Lady is saying. Do similar checks take place when people get married, as there is quite a trend towards new, double-barrelled surnames? Is that a similar loophole that people could use?

[Sarah Champion]

I do not know the specifics, but I do know a friend whose husband cheated on her, who wanted to change her name before the divorce came through. She used the £15 option; it is just filling out a form and paying the money.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

Clause 164 will amend the law to allow British Sign Language interpreters in jury deliberation rooms. This change will enable profoundly deaf people who use sign language to serve as jurors. The Opposition are supportive of the clause, and we are pleased to see the Government taking steps to include differently abled citizens in the processes of our criminal justice system. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for her work on behalf of deaf people, particularly on this issue.

Jury service is a centuries-old civic obligation. We all have to play our role when the time comes, and it is only right that deaf people should be able to play their part in society as equal to everyone else. As the former chief executive of the British Deaf Association, David Buxton, has said, the change was

“long, long, overdue but very welcome.”

The Royal National Institute for Deaf People also welcomed the clause, but thinks it could go further—a point I will come to when I turn to the Opposition amendments.

The Juries Act 1974 makes no provision for the maximum number of jurors; that is governed by common law, under which it is a long-established principle that a jury consists of 12 persons. It is common law that prohibits a 13th person.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

We all wish to do whatever we can to help those with a disability, but has the hon. Gentleman costed this for the taxpayer? Obviously, some trials go on for many days, and interpreters may charge £20, £30 or £40 an hour.

[Alex Cunningham]

It is a Government proposal to introduce interpreters in this situation, so perhaps the Minister can answer that question later. I would like the provision extended, as the hon. Gentleman will hear when I speak to the Opposition amendments.

The clause amends the common law “13th person” rule by adding new provisions to the 1974 Act to allow British Sign Language interpreters to assist deaf jurors, including in the course of their deliberations. The Government acknowledge in their equality impact statement that other individuals who might require the assistance of a third party will not benefit from the clause. The statement says:

“Where third party assistance is currently required in the jury deliberation room, efforts will be made to arrange for other jurors to provide this, wherever possible. For example, blind and partially sighted jurors can be assisted by a fellow juror reading out documents. However, we recognise this proposal is limited to profoundly deaf jurors who require a BSL interpreter and does not extend to other individuals with disabilities who, in order to serve effectively as a juror, would require the assistance of a third party (other than a fellow juror) in the jury deliberation room. We intend to keep this issue under review.”

It is welcome that the Government will keep the issue under review, but we could go further now. The Bar Council articulated the point well:

“If reasonable adjustments are to be made for jurors such as these who are otherwise disqualified, then adjustments should be made for all, otherwise a potential juror who is not able to understand British Sign Language (BSL) may feel discriminated against, as may a juror whose disability of disadvantage is not catered for by Clause 164.”

Could the Minister share with the Committee how his Department plans to review the extent of the provisions? I am sure the Committee would feel more comfortable moving forward with the clause if we knew a bit more about the Government’s plans in this area. It would be particularly good to hear whether there are plans to extend the use of the new provisions beyond people who are differently abled to people whose comprehension of English is insufficient for them to comprehend the proceedings fully.

I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on another issue raised in the Bar Council’s submission to the Committee. It raised concerns about the position of a juror in retirement. Our jury system guards the collective nature of jury deliberations, in that deliberations are confidential, and nothing is allowed to influence them. Subsection (3) contains provisions on that matter, including measures that put an interpreter under the same restrictions as a juror as regards carrying out research and disclosing deliberations. It makes it an offence for the interpreter

“intentionally to interfere in or influence the deliberations of the jury”.

If the Committee will bear with me, I will quote at length from the Bar Council’s submission, as it raises an important, though hopefully rare, possibility that needs to be safeguarded against, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on it:

“as soon as a thirteenth person is introduced into the jury, particularly during deliberations, the equilibrium of that jury is disturbed. All the input the hearing-impaired juror receives is via the interpretation—and the emphasis is on interpretation—of the thirteenth person, the interpreter.

That interpreter will have to control the deliberations so that they can interpret everything to the one juror. Any asides, cross-speaking or remarks which are not properly heard will not be transmitted and so the interpreter will become a sort of de facto second foreperson, controlling discussions. Inevitably their conduct will influence how the deliberations proceed.

Because a jury is kept private, any misconduct by any juror can only be reported by the other jurors. Although this does not happen frequently, it is not a rare occurrence; human nature being what it is. At present, anything amiss that occurs during deliberations is inevitably 16 witnessed by the rest of the jury, and if any single juror misconducts themselves the rest of the jury are obliged to report it. This is impossible in the case of the private communications between an interpreter and a deaf juror. Should either or both misconduct themselves, the whole premise upon which the integrity of the jury is based—that all witness the behaviour of each other—would break down and no one would know. For example, should an interpreter fail to interpret properly, no one would ever know. This is not to say that one should assume this will happen and that it is a reason not to permit interpreters. The fundamental objection is that the jury system can only work because it is the jury collectively which polices itself. That safeguard is removed if two people in retirement—the interpreter and the deaf juror—are participating in the deliberations in a way which the rest of the jury are excluded from and so cannot monitor.”

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), with my support and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Stockton North. It would produce more accountability in the rental of high-performance vehicles or supercars. I understand that the issue of high-powered vehicles being driven recklessly in and around neighbourhoods, thereby plaguing towns and communities, is a challenge not only in parts of West Yorkshire, but across the country. Many attempts have been made to combat the issue at local level, involving local authorities working side by side with police forces, but such partnership initiatives can go only so far, and it has become clear to all involved that action at national level is needed.

More often than not in the examples of road traffic offences committed by people using cars described as high-performance vehicles, supercars or even prestige cars, the driver is not the owner, but has hired the vehicle. In recent years, there has been an increase in people hiring cars such as Lamborghinis and Ferraris and passing the keys to someone else, if not several others. The vehicles are then driven at dangerously high speeds, which puts other road users, pedestrians and the drivers themselves at risk.

Often the driver will not have the appropriate insurance. They will argue that they believed that they were somehow covered by the rental agreement, by their own insurance or simply by the fact that the person who hired the car had given them consent to take it around the block. They will say that they had not intended to crash, so they did not need insurance. In the majority of cases, they will not have experience of handling 300 hp-plus vehicles, which can be deadly in the wrong hands. Many companies that hire out vehicles operate responsibly and with transparency, but there are much darker elements in the industry. The sliding scale of criminality ranges from drivers engaging in antisocial use of the roads in communities to dangerous and reckless driving through to serious and organised crime.

What can we do to ensure that all companies that rent performance vehicles act responsibly and drivers are accountable for their actions behind the wheel? The new clause makes a start, and it follows a ten-minute rule Bill that was introduced on the Floor of the House on 24 February by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. She recalled a recent example in which a police officer had stopped two high-performance vehicles on the same 40 mph road, one going at 76 mph and the other at 86 mph.

The new clause would mandate all rental vehicles of 300 hp or above for use on public highways to be fitted with a black box. A black box is typically the size of a matchbox and it records information about how and when a car is driven. Many hire car companies act competently and do their very best to ensure that their vehicles do not fall into the hands of the irresponsible—that includes fitting black boxes—but a minority fail to carry out due diligence.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group, and I am a little concerned that many older vehicles that may be hired—for example, vintage Bentleys—cannot be fitted with a black box, which might prevent those vehicles from being enjoyed by people who perhaps want to hire a little of our history.

[Sarah Jones]

I confess that I am not a car expert, but my understanding is that the vehicles in question are 300 hp or more. I do not know whether the vehicles the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned are in that category. The new clause relates to powerful cars that are hired by people—often young people—who pass them on to their friends. In some cases, significant damage is caused.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. I understand the problem she has identified. However, the Jaguar F-Pace 3.0 litre 4x4, for example, which families might hire to pull a caravan on a holiday or to go on a trip, would fall into that category. I am a little worried that many people who are not part of the problem might be drawn into additional cost and the difficulties that that might present.

[Sarah Jones]

I imagine that if a vehicle could not accommodate a black box, it would not fall within the remit of the new clause. Perhaps we could work on the guidance accompanying the new clause to fix the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am grateful to him for doing so.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

We certainly are. I quoted the figure earlier; some 95% of children end up leaving their home when their principal carer goes to prison, which bears out what my hon. Friend says.

The 2017 Farmer review found that family ties are a factor in reducing reoffending, which has attendant benefits for all our communities. The Government’s own 2018 female offender strategy acknowledges that

“custody results in significant disruptions to family life”

and that many women

“could be more successfully supported in the community, where reoffending outcomes are better.”

Sentencers are already expected to consider the impact on child dependants, but it seems that in reality the current guidelines are not applied rigorously or consistently across all cases.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights found in its 2019 inquiry “The right to family life: Children whose mothers are in prison” that despite the fact that the Sentencing Council had strengthened its guidance to judges and magistrates about the need to consider dependent children,

“evidence to the inquiry clearly indicated that this guidance is not being satisfactorily adhered to in practice and the question remains whether these steps go fast or far enough to guarantee children’s rights.”

Taken together these clauses will strengthen sentencers’ existing duties to ensure that they are applied consistently across all cases and that, as a result, children’s rights are guaranteed.

I will now consider the new clauses that deal with sentencing provisions. New clause 32 amends section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make clear the requirement for a sentencing judge to have a copy of a pre-sentence report, considering the impact of a custodial sentence on the dependent child, when sentencing a primary carer of a child. The Joint Committee has raised concerns about the current quality and use of pre-sentence reports and in its inquiry was told that pre-sentence reports were

“vitally important in ensuring that courts have all the information necessary about dependent children before sentencing a primary carer,”

but written evidence from Dr Natalie Booth noted that they were used

“inconsistently and ineffectively in many cases”.

New clause 33 amends section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to require a sentencing judge to state how the best interests of a child were considered when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child. New clause 34 would create a requirement for a sentencing judge to consider the impact of a custodial sentence on a child when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.

The Opposition believe that these new clauses can help address the current inconsistency that I previously referred to by explicitly requiring sentencers to give due regard to the impact of a sentence on any dependent children and their welfare. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights notes:

“These new clauses merely reflect what ought to, but sadly often does not, happen—to consider and respect the rights of the child when a primary carer is sentenced”.

As Dr Paradine of Women in Prison told the Committee in one of our evidence sessions:

“It is completely unacceptable that the measures up until now have not resulted in the change needed. This is an opportunity to make that small change. It does not require anything different, but it will make sure, hopefully, that the things that should be happening in court do happen, that imprisonment is not having a disproportionate impact on children and that their best interests are safeguarded.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 150, Q255.]

I think Dr Paradine puts it very compellingly; these are things that are already meant to happen in the court, yet in many cases they still do not.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very valid points and no one should underestimate the effect on a child of having either parent sent to jail. He talks a lot about “a primary carer”. As a parent, I see myself as sharing the care of our children. Is he assuming that in every case the woman would be the primary carer, or does he consider in these days of equality that it would be for the judge to decide who might be the primary carer?

[Alex Cunningham]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. There are some cases where a lone male parent is the principal carer who may find himself in the dock facing a prison sentence. Naturally, the provisions apply to both men and women.

Dr Paradine puts it very compellingly: these are things that are already meant to happen in the court, yet in many cases they still do not. The Government clearly intend these things to happen, so I hope they can support the new clauses backed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights today and tighten provision in this area.

New clause 35 would impose a requirement for the judge to consider the impact of not granting bail on a child when determining in criminal proceedings whether to grant bail to a primary carer of a dependent child. This is an important measure because we know that even short bouts in custody can have very destabilising effects on families. The Government’s own figures show that a significant proportion of women remanded into custody do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. In 2019, 66% of women remanded by the magistrates court and 39% remanded by the Crown court did not go on to receive one. Again, under the current provisions, consideration should be made of child dependants but in practice it is not, and so again we ask the Government to support the amendment backed by the JCHR and tighten practice in this area.

Finally, I turn to the data provisions in new clauses 26 and 36. New clause 26 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the number of offenders who receive a custodial sentence and who are parents of children or are pregnant at the time of their sentencing. New clause 36 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the number of prisoners who are the primary carers of a child and on the number of children who have a primary carer in custody. Both clauses speak to the same issue: there is an absence of data on this topic that needs to be addressed.

As the JCHR stated in its legislative scrutiny report for the Bill:

“The Government still does not know how many mothers of dependent children are in prison. It also does not know how many children are separated from their mother by her imprisonment. Despite this Committee’s repeated recommendations that it should collect this data, the Government’s approach continues to keep a group of children invisible to policy makers, the courts, the Prison Service and other support services.”

The Committee continued:

“A lack of data inhibits the ability of the Government, prisons and local authorities to design and evaluate services for children whose mothers are in prison. It prevents children whose primary carer has been separated from them, through no fault of their own, from accessing the support that will help them during and after their mothers’ sentence, and ultimately shows a blatant disregard for the rights of the child, as well as their parents’ right to family life.”

The absence of data is impacting service provision and ultimately preventing the Government from being able to improve measures to support primary carers and their children who are affected in this way, and means that we cannot measure progress in this area. These simple and straightforward duties on the Government are the next necessary step in improving the criminal justice system’s response to these cases, and I hope that the Government can support them today.

As Women in Prison recognises, this is a timely opportunity for the Government to

“make progress on their ambitions to radically reduce the number of women in prison included in their strategy and National Concordat on women in the criminal justice system, as well as the recommendations of the Farmer Review on women.”

Given that three in five women in prison have children under the age of 18, the proposed changes are needed now, as the Bill ushers in sentencing reforms.

The new clauses have cross-party support and will safeguard the welfare of the thousands of children who experience the profound impact of maternal imprisonment by ensuring that it is at least at the forefront of sentencers’ minds. All we ask is for the Government to ensure that what should happen does happen. Often, it simply does not.

The inclusion of the new clauses in the Bill will ensure that the data on the welfare of children is captured and adequately reported, so that those children can access the services and support that they need and deserve.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

I am coming close to saying that. I am saying that this is something that the Government are currently looking at. The Government accept the need to act on this, as the Lord Chancellor said, and on those other offences as well. I do not want to say too much before we are in a position to do so properly, but there are intentions to put in place a process to properly review these offences, on an expedited basis, with the intention of legislation then following. That is where the Government are coming from on this. I hope that it will be possible to say more on Report.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that he is probably coming as close as he can—within his pay grade—to making that commitment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I will come to the figures in a moment because they will, I hope, help the Committee understand the approach that the Government are taking.

In the protests, or demonstrations—or however one wants to describe them—there can be a range of activities, and the hon. Lady has, understandably, focused on some of the most upsetting forms of activity. There are more peaceful ways of protesting, however, and I do not think it would be right for me to pretend that every single protest has the ability to harass and alarm in the way in which she has said some protests do. The advantage of PSPOs is that they are very local. They are brought by local authorities in the circumstances of their area, and the conditions imposed will reflect the conditions of the protests faced outside service providers.

[Mr Goodwill]

I was going to make a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Is it not the case that many local authorities find the process complex and expensive? Will the Minister consider providing a toolbox or other assistance to local authorities to enable them to do this in a way that does not put them outside their comfort zones in the areas in which they have been working?

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. Indeed, that has been part of our work with the review. We conducted the first review in 2018 and, to put this in context—I will read the figures out because I want to make sure they are correct—of the 406 clinics and hospitals identified as providing those services, providers told us that only 36 had stated that they experience any protest activity.

[Victoria Atkins]

I accept that, and of course, women can be in a distressed state when they are approaching clinics. They may be in turmoil and may have questions about what they are about to do—they may well have doubts. I am sympathetic to the idea that not every protest has to display the sorts of posters that the hon. Member for Rotherham has described to unsettle or upset women accessing those services.

I have a second set of figures. The figures are important because we as a Government have to look at proportionate responses. The first set of figures came out of the 2018 review. Since then, to come to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, we have again asked service providers for their views and whether there has been an increase or decrease in activity. The figure I have been provided with is that 35 out of the 142 registered clinics are currently or have recently been affected by protest activities. Five hospitals have been affected. That compares with 32 clinics and four hospitals being affected in 2018.

I am told, incidentally, that one of the clinics that had been reviewed in 2018 has since closed down, so that may explain that difference. I give the figures because that is why we are concerned that a blanket ban across all of the service providers may not be proportionate, given that the majority of clinics and the overwhelming majority of hospitals that provide these services do not appear to have been affected by protest activity thus far. That is why we believe that a localised approach of PSPOs, with councils using the orders, is the way forward.

We have also looked very carefully at whether there is work we can do to help councils understand the powers that they have under the orders. Again, we believe that the law is in a good place at the moment, but we very much keep this under review.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the Minister for those assurances. Would it also be the case that where an abortion clinic is in a general hospital, the measure could unintentionally prevent people from protesting against the closure of a ward or a service, or trade unionists protesting about a particular aspect of their employment rights?

[Victoria Atkins]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why we have looked so carefully at the universality of the measures put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton and why we believe that PSPOs, which are targeted and have been upheld by the Court of Appeal, seem to be the most effective way of managing these very difficult circumstances outside particular service providers.

I appreciate that this may be corrected before Report, but we are also concerned that proposed subsection (3) of the new clause potentially includes medical practitioners and others providing advice on abortion services within the confines of the buffer zone—in other words, within the clinic. Nobody—but nobody—would want that to be an unintended consequence of the new clause. My right hon. Friend has alighted on another unintended consequence—that other forms of protest may be caught by the new clause.

We very much understand the motivations behind the new clause and the work that parliamentarians have been conducting over recent years in order to shed light on this issue, but the Government do not feel able to support new clause 43.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will be aware that, in many cases, this is not a deal that the tenant would have at the outset. It is when they fall behind with the rent that a proposition is made to them, so it is a choice between eviction or succumbing to this situation. In that case, the woman is in a very pressurised situation.

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. Of course, there can be additional pressures, even to those my right hon. Friend has described—for example, if the victim is worrying about housing themselves and their children. We understand, and have great sympathy with, the motivation behind the new clauses.

In 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service amended its guidance on prostitution and the exploitation of prostitution to include specific reference to the potential availability of charges under the section 52 and section 53 offences where there is evidence to support the existence of sex for rent arrangements. I am advised that there is a case in the criminal justice system at the moment in which sex for rent allegations are being prosecuted under those sections. Of course, I will not comment further, because it is sub judice, but the outcome of that case will help to improve our understanding of the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation as it is at the moment.

We are looking at understanding the barriers to pursuing such cases. We have heard evidence that this practice may be widespread; the hon. Member for Stockton North referred to the Shelter survey, which extrapolated that there may be up to 30,000 victims of this type of coercion. However, the problem is that those numbers are not reflected in reports to the police. As with so many hidden crimes, domestic abuse being but one example, cases are often not reported to the police, so there is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: if the crimes are not reported, the police of course cannot investigate them, and prosecutions cannot be brought. Again, like many other hidden crimes, there is an element of raising awareness and enabling people to seek advice and help and to report crimes to the police so that they can then be protected through the criminal justice system and the offenders can be brought to justice.

We are conscious of the role of online services as well. Under our new legislation that is coming forward—the Online Safety Bill—tech companies will for the first time have a legal duty to prevent criminal activity on their services. The new legislation will apply to services that host user-generated content or enable users to interact online. This will cover a broad range of services that could be used to facilitate sex for rent, including online marketplaces, classified ads sites and social media services. Services in the scope of the new legislation will have to put in place systems and processes to limit the spread of illegal content and to swiftly remove any illegal content that may harm individuals when those services become aware of it. We also need to make sure that online advertising regulation is fit for purpose. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is considering tougher regulation on online advertising and will consult on this issue later this year.

We await the result of the case that is in the criminal justice system at the moment. I encourage anyone who is able, and who has the wherewithal, to report instances such as this to the police so that they can be investigated. I assure the Committee that we will examine this issue as part of our work on the violence against women and girls strategy. We are very aware of the vulnerabilities that people may find themselves in, as set out so eloquently by hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. If constituents write to hon. Members, please encourage them to report their cases to the police if they are able to, so that those cases can be investigated and brought to justice.

I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North feels able to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Regardless of the duty on the court to which the Minister refers, it remains a fact that children are receiving sentences under the adult regime. There is no two ways about that. What concerns me most is the rehabilitation period. A child who commits an offence as a 17-year-old who does not appear in court until he is 18 can end up with a rehabilitation period of four years, which takes him to his early 20s. All that time, if he is applying for a job or with respect to other activities, he must declare that. That is a real concern for me.

I am not going to push the new clauses to the vote at this time, but the Government need to do much more thinking in this area and start treating children as children. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 69

Poaching of game

“(1) The Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1), after “committing” insert “or has committed”.

(3) In section 4(1)—

(a) after “section thirty” insert “or section thirty two”, and

(b) at end insert “or any animal, vehicle, or other article belonging to him, or in his possession or under his control at the relevant time.”

(4) In section 4(2), after “gun” in lines 2 and 4 insert “, animal,”.

(5) In section 4, at end insert—

“(6) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under either the Night Poaching Act 1828 or the Game Act 1831 may order the offender to reimburse any expenses incurred by the police in connection with the keeping of any animal seized in connection with the offence.”

(6) In section 4A(1)—

(a) in line 1, after “under” insert “section one or section 9 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 or”,

(b) after “thirty” insert “or section thirty two”, and

(c) omit “as one of five or more persons liable under that section.””.—(Mr Goodwill.)

This new clause is intended to broaden the powers available to the police and the courts for dealing with illegal hare coursers, measures include providing for forfeiture of animals on conviction and permitting the recovery of expenses incurred by the police in housing a seized animal.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Goodwill]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—

“Game Act 1831 penalties—

“(1) The Game Act 1831 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 30 (trespassing in search or pursuit of game)—

(a) for “level 3” substitute “level 5”, and

(b) delete “and if any persons to the number of five or more together shall commit any trespass, by entering or being in the daytime upon any land in search or pursuit of game, or woodcocks, snipes, or conies, each of such persons shall, on conviction thereof before a justice of the peace, forfeit and pay such sum of money, not exceeding [level 4] on the standard scale] as to the said justice shall seem meet.””.

This new clause would remove any cap on the amount of the fine, and remove the requirement for a minimum of 5 persons.

[Mr Goodwill]

The new clauses would strengthen the powers of the police and the courts to tackle the thorny and persistent problem of illegal hare coursing. Hare coursing is a form of poaching whereby offenders trespass on private land in pursuit of hares with dogs, but that is not simply about taking one for the pot. Rather, it involves high-stakes illegal gambling, as dogs are pitted against each other in a test of their ability to chase, catch and kill hares.

Coursing contrasts with traditional poaching—I have a picture in my mind of Claude Greengrass in “Heartbeat”, which was filmed in my constituency—in that the carcases of the dead hares are cast aside as waste and often left to rot in the field after the kill. Offenders destroy gates and fences to gain access to the land, and tear up newly sown crops as they follow the chase in their vehicles. The hare coursing season, for want of a better word, runs from August to March, between the harvest being cleared from the fields and the new crops getting out of the ground. Coursing is normally, but not exclusively, undertaken on areas of flat arable land, and often filmed from a vehicle and livestreamed across the internet. Large amounts of money are illegally bet on the outcome of the chase and ultimately, and almost inevitably, the kill.

The dogs involved in the sport are highly prized by their owners due to their ability to win large amounts of money. Police have the power to seize dogs at the scene of the incident, but cannot reclaim the cost of looking after them from the offender if a conviction is secured. There can be a number of months between the seizing of a dog at the time of the offence and the trial, imposing severe pressure on the budgets of police forces. As a result, many forces do not seize the dogs at first investigation, but it is impossible for courts to issue a forfeiture order if the animal is not already in custody.

New clause 69 would strengthen the ability of the police to seize dogs, as it would enable the investigating police force to be reimbursed for the cost of kennelling confiscated dogs pending trial. That would sweep away the budgetary burden on police forces and empower officers to remove dogs from fields, which ultimately means removing the tools of the trade from hare coursers.

A broad coalition of organisations has come together to support those legislative changes, including the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—three organisations of which I am a member—as well as the Countryside Alliance, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Kennel Club.

The changes are also supported by officers working on the police’s national approach to hare coursing, which is known as Operation Galileo. Police have begun to investigate the links between hare coursing and organised crime. In September 2018, Thomas Jaffray was jailed for 13 years and four months after being found guilty of conspiracy to supply cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis, and a conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime. Jaffray was regularly involved in hare coursing in Lincolnshire and other parts of the country.

The leader of Operation Galileo, Chief Inspector Phil Vickers, has said that

“rural communities rightly expect us to use all of the tools at our disposal to tackle offending, and by developing our understanding of the criminal links, we can do just that.”

However, occasions on which there is betting activity are not the only problem. The participants see coursing as a sport in which they need regularly to train their dogs, and the Country Land and Business Association estimates that tens of thousands of hares are slaughtered each year in illegal hare coursing, with members reporting multiple incidents each week with up to 10, and sometimes as many as 20, hares being killed by dogs on each visit.

This year’s National Farmers Union rural crime survey found that 41% of farm businesses had experienced hare coursing during 2020. I should point out that neither of my new clauses attempts to interfere with the Hunting Act 2004, which the Government have a manifesto commitment not to amend.

New clause 70 makes proposals in relation to the fine that could be imposed when an individual was convicted of hare coursing offences. Fines imposed under section 30 of the Game Act 1831 are set at level 3, which means that there is a cap of £1,000. Evidence collected by the CLA refers to hare coursing convictions spanning 15 years and lists 175 separate convictions, 75% of which were brought under the 1831 Act. The CPS specifically recommends the use of that Act for hare coursing offences. Sentencing data from the same 15 years show that fines amount to just a couple of hundred pounds, even for repeat offenders. In essence, that amounts to the cost of a day out for those individuals in pursuit of their so-called sport.

The new clause would increase the financial risk attached to the practice of hare coursing better to reflect the anguish and damage caused by those offenders, against the backdrop of the large financial reward they collect for, in essence, getting away with it or, at the very least, getting off lightly.

It would be remiss of me to conclude without highlighting the fear and anguish that hangs over farmers and landowners who are regularly targeted by hare coursers. These offenders are highly unsavoury individuals who often have a string of other offences to their name and who, if challenged, can become abusive, aggressive and threatening. Farmers and landowners live in constant fear of retribution if action is taken against the coursers. Physical threats are being made to farmers and straw stacks are vulnerable to arson attacks.

Hare coursing is a blight on our rural communities and an abuse of our precious wildlife. Men are running amok around the countryside without fear of penalty as police officers are poorly equipped with the legislative tools to match the contempt of these offenders. These new clauses offer an opportunity to equip our police officers and courts with the powers they need to tackle the problem head on and send a strong message that hare coursing will no longer be tolerated.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister that this is a problem recognised by the Government and that they intend to take action. It may well be that more measures could be taken. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who was fortunate in the private Member’s Bill ballot, has published the short title of his Bill, which seems to address this issue. I hope for reassurances from the Minister that will obviate the need to divide on this issue.

[Sarah Champion]

I fully support everything the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is not sport, but chasing down a wild animal to rip it apart for money. I am opposed to that, as I am to other blood sports. It is not done by local people, but people who come from all over the country in an organised manner. They do enormous damage to the land, and threaten and intimidate local people who expose their actions.

I agree that the fines for this brutish behaviour are far too small. These new clauses would put much better protections and sanctions in place. I also agree that if the police had the resources to take the dogs, that would be a much better threat to those people, because without the dogs they are unable to keep going with this so-called sport. Also, the dog is worth much more to them than the threat of the fine.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that my right hon. Friend well understands the complexities of developing new legislation and that he has been closely involved with DEFRA Ministers in trying to deal with the issue, and I am most grateful to him. I would like to take this opportunity also to thank Lincolnshire police and the officers who work on Operation Galileo, and officers across the country where these gangs see fit to hare course. I can give him the reassurance that the Government take these matters very seriously and are working up the necessary proposals to be able to meet our action plan to tackle this crime.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said and I am satisfied that the Government take this issue seriously—not just because of the words that I have heard her say now, but also because I was contacted by the office of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has asked me for a meeting on the strength of the new clauses. It makes a nice change for Cabinet Ministers to ask Back Benchers to meet them to discuss issues. I am optimistic that action will be taken and hope that tabling the two new clauses has done precisely that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 71

Child criminal exploitation (No.2)

“(1) A person (A) commits the offence of child criminal exploitation if—

(a) A intentionally takes advantage of an imbalance of power over another person (B) to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive B into committing a criminal offence,

(b) A is aged 18 or over, and

(c) B is under 18.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 14 years.”—(Alex Cunningham.)

This new clause would define and create an offence of child criminal exploitation with a maximum prison term on conviction on indictment of 14 years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind hon. Members that, if we do put a speaking limit on, it will be on the countdown clock, which will be visible on the screen. I am now going to appeal to everybody, without the time limit on, to please not force it. Let us be kind to each other—short and brief. Everybody, I believe, has a genuine contribution to make, so I really want to hear them.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will try to lead by example in that regard.

Part 1 of the Bill increases the penalty for assault on an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. Many other key workers are on the frontline, too. Indeed, shopworkers have borne the brunt of much of the abuse about mask wearing and social distancing in stores, on top of the existing problems associated with age verification for the purpose of alcoholic drinks purchases, drunken abusive behaviour, and of course shoplifting. Late-night shops are often run single-handedly, so the distress and trauma associated with assaults or threatening behaviour should not be underestimated. I am due to meet shortly with in-store workers from my local Tesco to see at first hand how this problem has affected staff in that setting. I hope the Minister can reassure me—either now or when she sums up at the end—that she is aware of the issue’s importance and that amendments may not be necessary to deliver the action we all believe is needed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his scrutiny and service not just on Report but in Committee. I can reassure him; I know how strongly he and other Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), feel about the matter. I reassure the House that we are not complacent about ensuring that the criminal law is fit for purpose. We are actively considering an amendment in the Lords if appropriate.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. The other two items I want to discuss were underlined by the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about lining up with wokeism rather than with the hard-working people who find their lives disrupted in the workplace, when travelling to work or, indeed, in their communities. I commend the Government for the public order measures in part 3 and despair at amendments 1 to 7 tabled by several Lib Dem and Labour colleagues, which would completely remove that aspect of the Bill.

It is of course, a basic human right to be allowed to demonstrate one’s strongly held feelings. Indeed, I have been on demonstrations myself. I went on the countryside march, and I marched at the head of an opposition demonstration in Minsk, which had a slightly less jolly atmosphere. However, the Government must take action to prevent deliberate acts of vandalism or obstruction such as those associated with Extinction Rebellion and, I am sorry to say, Black Lives Matter. Yes, people have the right to demonstrate, but not in a way that prevents people from going about their lawful business: travelling to work, being taken to hospital by ambulance or, indeed, Members of Parliament being able to access this building to exercise our democratic mandate.

I am particularly pleased that we are taking action on single-personal protests. Over the spring bank holiday in May, local Labour councillor Theresa Norton sat in the middle of the street in the middle of Scarborough on the first weekend on which many of our hard-pressed tourism businesses were keen to make up some of the money they had lost during the pandemic. She caused a massive traffic jam, supposedly demonstrating in the cause of Extinction Rebellion. That sort of behaviour should not be allowed because it disrupts people’s lives and, I believe, actually antagonises people against such issues.

Finally, I am disappointed that the Labour and SNP Front-Bench teams are so out of touch with the genuine distress and disruption caused by illegal Traveller encampments. They seem to have some kind of rose-tinted view of traditional Romany lifestyles, but that is not the reality on the ground and the Government are right to take action. Communities have asked us to take action, and there is a clear choice to be made between supporting those communities or supporting people who lawlessly occupy land and cause havoc and destruction.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

This Bill contains some of the most controversial restrictions of our rights for many years. It is very long, and we have only a few hours to debate it, so I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that we should have had more time. During the pandemic, we have seen more than 400 regulations passed through statutory instruments with little or no scrutiny—necessary, but unprecedented. Now is the time to be reclaiming our rights, not restricting them further. This Bill will do little to tackle the real problems that British people face. It will not protect vulnerable children who are victims of criminal exploitation. It will not take dangerous weapons off our streets. It will not protect rape victims. It does nothing to tackle violence against women and girls.

Turning to part 1, we are pleased that, after almost three years of campaigning from the Police Federation, the Government have finally introduced the police covenant. I am reassured that the Government agreed with my amendment to include the whole policing family in the covenant, but why did the Government not accept amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to support mental health when we know that suicide levels are increasing and that one in five officers has PTSD. Why did they not accept our simple suggestions for some independence and scrutiny to be included in the process? As currently drafted, the covenant could be little more than warm words—a wasted opportunity to stand with our police officers after all they have done for us.

Clause 2 relates to assaults against emergency workers. My hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have campaigned for years to introduce a separate offence, with longer sentencing, for assaulting an emergency worker. Following years of increasing assaults against our most valued public servants, we are pleased that the Government have finally listened to the call, but why on earth will they not now commit to extending similar protections to the key workers who have done for so much for us, such as shop workers?

On Friday, I visited a Co-op in Croydon, where I heard about the violence and abuse that shop workers suffer and that, sadly, they feel has become part of the job. I met a man in his 70s in New Addington who runs a pet shop and was punched in the face by a customer. Of our 3 million retail workers, 300,000 were assaulted last year, yet only 6% of incidents led to prosecution. Abuse must not be part of the job.

The public agree with us: a survey published on Saturday shows that 89% back the new law. Industry agrees with us: the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the British Retail Consortium have been campaigning on the issue for years. Yesterday, leaders of 100 brands, including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, IKEA and Aldi, all published an open letter calling for greater protection for retail workers. MPs agree with us: the Select Committee on Home Affairs published a report last week, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) has corralled a very impressive number of Conservative MPs to support his new clause 90 on the same issue.

Tonight, the Government have a choice: do the right thing and back our retail and public service workers, or ignore the wishes of the public and give us another excuse. I hear the Minister saying that she is actively considering it, but she could commit to it tonight and give retail workers and our public servants the protections that they deserve.

Chapter 1 of part 2 introduces a duty to tackle and prevent serious violence. I have campaigned for years for the Government to tackle the growing epidemic of violent crime. Yesterday, I was at a vigil for a boy, just turned 16, who was brutally murdered in my constituency last week, in his own home, in front of his mother. Nothing is more important than keeping our children safe.

We have called for an evidence-based approach to tackling violence, and we support the intention of the serious violence duty to get every agency locally working together to tackle violence, but we have serious concerns on three fronts. First, there is no provision in the Bill to safeguard children and the Government have rejected calls for a new definition of child criminal exploitation. Secondly, we are very concerned about the data capture elements of chapter 1; the duty risks becoming an intelligence-gathering exercise with potentially ominous consequences. Thirdly, it must be made clear in the Bill that violence against women and girls counts as serious violence—it should not be an added extra. We want the serious violence duty to work, but we fear that, as currently drafted, it will not. I ask the Government to consider our amendments to protect children, to protect data and to protect women and girls.

Chapter 3 of part 2 relates to data extraction. We are asking the Government to protect victims, particularly victims of rape and sexual abuse, from painful and often necessary intrusion into their lives by the mining of their phone data. When we raised concerns in Committee, the Minister said:

“I…urge caution until the rape review is published, because there may be answers in that document.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 27 May 2021; c. 286.]

With respect to the Minister, the rape review has been published and its recommendations do not address the problems that we defined. One in five rape victims withdrew their complaints, at least in part because of disclosure and privacy concerns. The Secretary of State for Justice has apologised for failing rape victims, yet he is bringing forward legislation that would legitimise over-intrusion. The Government did not support our amendments in Committee to protect victims, but tonight they have a chance to think again.

Part 3 relates to public order. Over the past year, the police have had to enforce necessary but draconian covid regulations after little scrutiny and short notice. I have heard many times from the police that they have struggled to be the ones interpreting the law without the leadership from the Government that they needed. It is our job to define the law in a clear way so that the police are not the ones getting the blame for our lawmaking. That must be a firm lesson for us.

The public order powers in part 3 threaten the fundamental balance between the police and the people. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services called for a “modest reset” of the scales on public order legislation in its recent report. On any measure, a “modest reset” is not what this is. The new measures in the Bill target protesters for being too noisy and causing “serious unease” or “serious annoyance”. The vague terminology creates a very low threshold for police-imposed conditions and essentially rules out entirely—potentially—peaceful protest.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Lady agree that when she talks about “the people”, that would include the people whose lives are disrupted, who cannot get to work, who experience all the points that I made in my remarks? They are the people as well and they want to get on with their lives.

[Sarah Jones]

I wonder where that stops and at what point we accept the right balance between the right to protest peacefully and the right of people to go about their business. The inspectorate called for a moderate reset and that is not what this is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many abortion clinics are co-located with general hospitals, which could curtail the rights of trade unionists and health workers to demonstrate outside their own hospital?

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I acknowledge that that is the case. If we cannot have demonstrations, that sets a dangerous precedent, and I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause. Current laws provide wide-ranging powers for authorities to keep public order and protect women and the public from genuine harassment and intimidation. An extensive review undertaken by the Home Office in 2018 concluded that

“legislation already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others.”

Most notably, under section 59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, public space protection orders can be used. The UK’s first buffer zone around an abortion clinic was established in 2018 by Ealing Council, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, using a public space protection order. It prevents protesters from gathering up to 100 metres from the clinic. Other local authority areas have brought in similar public space protection orders. In summary, I urge Members of the House to reject the new clause.