(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:30 - Division on Amendment 387A - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 387A agreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 387B - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 221 - Amendment 387B agreed.
19:16 - Division on Amendment 391 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 391 agreed.
“Police charges for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a framework to regulate the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions. (2) The framework under subsection (1) must—(a) include criteria to specify when a police escort is required for vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions, as opposed to a private self-escort, and(b) set out the fees police forces may charge for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.(3) Police forces may submit applications in writing to the Secretary of State to disapply the fees set by the regulatory framework in extenuating circumstances.(4) The Secretary of State must make a determination within ten days of receiving an application submitted under subsection (3).(5) In this section “vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions” means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (authorisation of use on roads of special vehicles not complying with regulations under section 41).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I fear I am a wholly inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has now retired from your Lordships’ House after 35 years of dedicated service. During that time, he raised many important issues relating to haulage, including in Committee on this Bill. While my noble friend was proud to be the only Member of either House of Parliament with an HGV licence, I should admit, with a little shame, that I do not have a driving licence at all. There is perhaps a lesson in that, now that we have passed a Bill to expel our hereditary colleagues, with all their varied areas of expertise, leaving behind former apparatchiks such as me.
I was very glad to support my noble friend’s amendment in Committee and to take up the cudgels now, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because it is an issue which has a profound impact on many organisations across the cultural, tourism and heritage sectors, not least our heritage railways, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very strongly in Committee. This weekend, he and I had the pleasure of being in Llandudno, in our capacities as president and chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, for the HRA annual awards. These celebrated the extraordinary achievements of charities, small businesses and volunteers of all ages, from every corner of the UK, in keeping this much-loved part of our national heritage thriving in the face of considerable challenges, such as rising costs, employment taxes and more.
I was especially pleased to see such strong representation there from the north-east of England as we celebrated those responsible for marking the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey from Stockton to Darlington in such style, and I was delighted to see the Tanfield Railway, which charts its history back 100 years even further, to the age of horse-driven wagon-ways, become Railway of the Year. That means that a small corner of County Durham now boasts the Museum of the Year, in Beamish, and the Railway of the Year just a few minutes away.
However, one of the things which makes the work of brilliant organisations like these harder is the way that certain police forces manage the movement of abnormal loads on our road network. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways is undertaken by road on low loaders. These movements are vital for the galas at which historic locomotives and vintage carriages bring such joy to people of all generations—not to mention inward investment to towns, cities and rural communities—as well as for essential maintenance and repairs. These road movements are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors and sometimes have to be accompanied by a police escort vehicle. The cost of these police escorts is typically between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and, in some cases, even exceed the haulier’s charges, with some heritage railways reporting charges that they have seen in excess of £7,000. For many of our heritage railways, which are registered charities or small businesses operating on very tight margins, these costs can be entirely prohibitive.
Moreover, there is widespread inconsistency in the application of these charges, with some police forces charging and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on the weight of the load, but some determine it on the length. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles through a particular police force area, with the rest of the journey going unescorted, but a full fee is still applied. To avoid these charges, some hauliers are now making large and unnecessary detours, which add mileage and costs, and increase the environmental impact. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, explained that a particular culprit in this regard is West Midlands Police, which many hauliers have been trying to avoid because of the unhelpful attitudes that it has displayed, but of course that is not very easy given its central location in England.
Following the debates in Committee and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Policing Minister Sarah Jones had a helpful exchange of correspondence with the acting chief constable of West Midlands, underlining the importance of adhering to the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on this matter. We are very grateful to the Minister for writing in the way that she did, and we all hope that her letter and the change of leadership at that force will bring some improvements. However, West Midlands is far from the only force causing dismay with an inconsistent approach or excessive charges. Heritage railways moving loads through Staffordshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland have all reported similar issues to those confronted in the West Midlands.
This is a problem that afflicts many businesses and organisations in every sector. I have heard from the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, which represents the owners and operators of approximately 3,000 holiday, touring and residential parks across the United Kingdom. Its members also have experienced excessive cost increases when transporting static caravans to and from holiday parks, as well as significant delays from an inconsistent application of embargoes by various police forces. Most troublingly, the Holiday and Residential Parks Association says that, despite the publication of revised guidance by the NPCC last summer, it and its members continue to see very little improvement in practice. Given the need for clarity and consistency, this is not a matter which should have rely on the whims of individual police forces or the good offices of the Policing Minister, whoever he or she happens to be at the time.
It is particularly damaging for rural and coastal areas where tourism is one of the major sources of employment. If the Government want to support economic growth across our country, here is a clear area in which they could act to help the growth creators. The Minister has been very helpful in discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and me. First, can he say what weight the guidance prepared by the National Police Chiefs’ Council carries? What penalties or remedies apply if an individual force do not adhere to it? Secondly, can the Minister set out some of the actions that the West Midlands Police has promised, following the exchange of correspondence between it and the Policing Minister? Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said in Committee that:
“Introducing a standardised regulatory framework … would also risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs”.—[Official Report, 15/1/26; col. 1953.]
Does he really think it fair that heritage railways or holiday parks in some parts of the country should be treated differently to others, and does he think it right to risk creating the sort of postcode lottery that we have already begun to see?
Amendment 384, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I are proud to bring forward on behalf of our noble friend Lord Attlee, and building on his work, does not ask Ministers to intervene in operational matters. It simply requires the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage more clearly and consistently the fees that are charged to hauliers when escorting what may be dryly termed in the industry as “abnormal loads”, but which ordinary people across this country would think of as inspiring locomotives, much-loved holiday homes and more besides. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 384, which is similar to the one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and debated in Committee on 15 January. Police charges for abnormal loads are a cause he very much made his own, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and I am sorry that his retirement from your Lordships’ House came just a couple of weeks too early for him to be here to move the amendment today.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am an unworthy substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am afraid it is one of those occasions when real life catches up with your Lordships’ House; it has stopped her being here today. She supports the amendment. When you start to think about it, it comes under the heading of a no-brainer: there should be a consistent approach. If you are taking on an economic activity to transport something across the country, you should have a rough idea about a consistent approach to transporting it. If you have not, there should be a very good reason. There does not seem to be one, other than it having been decided that they will be charged at this rate.
Heritage railways are a nice cause, but there are more widespread and universal economic impacts from this if you transport goods on our main transport system without incurring extra, sometimes prohibitive costs. It would be comparatively easy for the Government to at least bring them into line and give them some steer as to a realistic level of charge to be placed on them. At the very least, admin considerations around this can be cut down. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that it is all in hand and that the Government have a timetable for making sure anybody involved in this knows what is happening, so that everybody can say “thank you very much” and move on to the next issue.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. I suggest that if, as I hope, the Minister agrees that regulations are needed, they should not just deal with consistency but impose a substantive limit on the fees to be charged. It seems that in this context, as in many others, the maximum that should be charged is the cost incurred to police forces.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, although the movement of abnormal loads may seem like a niche and marginal activity, my noble friend Lord Attlee, who recently retired from your Lordships’ House, laid out a compelling argument in Committee for why that is not the case. The heavy haulage industry is a vital component of our national infrastructure and construction sectors, yet the framework governing when police escorts are required and how much may be charged for them is inconsistent.
It is wonderful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has now taken up the mantle on this matter. He began his contribution by outlining his concerns about the use of heavy haulage by the heritage railway industry, an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The issues are wider than that. In Committee, Earl Attlee spoke with considerable authority on this matter and set out the difficulties that parts of the industry have experienced. In particular, he highlighted the sharp increase in charges in certain areas and the absence of any national framework governing those fees. In some cases, police forces have charged for a full shift of officers, even where the escort itself may take a very short period of time. Industry representatives have raised understandable concerns that such practices can result in costs that far exceed the cost of the haulage operation itself.
The overwhelming majority of police forces apply the relevant legislation in good faith and without difficulty. The problem appears to arise in only a minority of forces, where the absence of national guidance has led to practices that the industry considers disproportionate. The result is uncertainty for hauliers, increased costs for major infrastructure projects and, ultimately, inefficiency within a system that should be operating smoothly.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that there is a clear national framework. It sets out when police escorts are truly necessary, as opposed to private self-escorts, and would establish a transparent schedule of fees. It also sensibly seeks to allow police forces to apply to the Secretary of State for flexibility in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Put simply, the amendment balances the need for consistency with the operational realities that police forces face. For those reasons, I am grateful both for the tireless campaigning of Earl Attlee and to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for continuing to push the Government on this matter.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I join all the speakers in the debate on this small but important issue in praising the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who, after almost 34 years of service in this House, retired just a few days ago. It would be remiss of me not to join in paying tribute to him, his work and the tenacity with which he pursued this issue, including recruiting the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester to take up the cudgels on his behalf. He was a true champion of the heavy haulage industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said, it is important that we focus on this not just because of the impact on the Heritage Railway Association—as dear as it is to many hearts in your Lordships’ House—but because of the importance it has to our economy, including all the construction and infrastructure that we wish to provide.
Earl Attlee took great pride in being the only Member of your Lordships’ House to hold an HGV licence. I hope that, in his absence, he is pleased to know that that knowledge gap has been bridged in some part by my newly introduced noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham. By virtue of being a firefighter, he holds—or at least held—an HGV licence for the purpose of driving fire engines. I think that Earl Attlee would have appreciated that.
Moving to the matters before us in the amendments, as noble Lords have explained, the amendment relates to setting criteria specifying when a police escort is required and charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads and would require the Secretary of State to establish a framework to regulate such fees. While I recognise that the aim of the amendment is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such loads, we do not believe that a new statutory framework is necessary.
Changes have already been made to support greater consistency. In May last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published new guidance outlining when police escorts should be provided for abnormal loads. This was developed in collaboration with policing, industry and national highways. The NPCC Abnormal Load Guidance 2025 is the national framework used by all UK police forces to determine whether an escort is required and, if so, whether that escort must be provided by the police or can be undertaken as a self-escort. Furthermore, a national framework setting out charges for escorting these loads already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the cost of policing in specific circumstances. Fee levels are set out in the guidance on special police services by the NPCC, and this is updated annually.
Introducing a standardised regulatory framework—as I said in Committee, and I will repeat it here—undermines the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs. We cannot escape this fact. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal load movements can differ across the country and are influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic additions and the availability of police resources.
To be clear, the Government take this issue seriously. As we have heard, following a meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, my colleague, Policing Minister Jones, wrote to West Midlands Police to pass on her concerns. I am grateful for the commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner, of that correspondence. As a result, I understand that West Midlands Police is undertaking an independent, expert evaluation to assess the force’s compliance systems and processes against the NPCC guidance.
It is important to allow time for the recent guidance to have effect before considering further action. Furthermore, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, the NPCC has committed to formally review its abnormal loads guidance 12 months after publication; that is, in May of this year—a couple of months’ time.
I understand noble Lords’ concerns around the adherence of police forces to this guidance. Therefore, I can confirm that the Government will write to the NPCC following Royal Assent of the Bill to remind forces of the need to follow the guidance I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and, in the same spirit, my noble friend Lord Faulkner asked what weight could be given to the guidance issued by the NPCC and what actions might be pursued by West Midlands Police as a consequence. As I have already said, West Midlands Police is undertaking a review. This is NPCC guidance, which it is itself reviewing to make sure that it remains current and responsive to issues that emerge over time.
There is always a balance between having inflexible statutory guidance, inflexible statutory regulation and guidance that is operated locally. We are currently on the side of the latter. Within that, this is national guidance. Police forces will pay great attention to that. They will pay even greater attention to the idea that, to quote my noble friend Lord Faulkner, the Policing Minister is “on the case” with this. With respect, I think that is an appropriate level of intervention. The Government are aware that it is an important issue. We will always keep our eyes on it and make sure that we can have a level of scrutiny to ensure that police forces behave respectfully toward hauliers while maintaining their local operational independence.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Will the letter that the Minister mentioned make the point that it is unacceptable in principle for police forces to seek to make a profit via the imposition of these fees?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I would need to go back and check on the correspondence for the noble Lord, but this is about making sure that this is covering costs, rather than anything else.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her absence, as well as to my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, for the engagement that we had in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this ought to be a no-brainer. We need consistency from police forces, and we have not seen that. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly added that it is important that industry and all the sectors affected see that, where charges are applied, it is merely to cover legitimate costs and not a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it has become.
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) Where a constable has exercised the power under subsection (1), the constable may also require the person to remove the face covering.(4) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and I have attached my name to it. Before I move on to it, I want briefly to indicate my support for the excellent amendment in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, Amendment 387A, which would give regulatory authorities greater powers to tackle illegal activity that is afflicting many villages, towns and cities in our country and, in particular, is impacting the amenity and quality of life in residential and commercial areas. I very much hope that the House is predisposed to support that amendment.
Amendment 385 seeks to get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the public by covering their faces when breaking the law. It would give police officers the power to stop individuals while wearing a face covering. Following an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in Committee, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also provided that a constable may require the person to remove the face covering.
I think it is fair to say that many of us have been disappointed by the Government’s response so far to all the amendments on cycling, e-bikes and e-scooters, and to our efforts to use the Bill to destroy the business model that makes mobile phone thefts so profitable and attractive to criminals. I do not seek to relitigate our debate last week on mobile phone theft, but I hope that your Lordships’ House can understand the context in which I am moving the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said from our Front Bench in Committee:
“I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 163.]
Our city streets now teem with men—they are usually men—on fast cycles, electric bikes and scooters, whose faces are, even in summer, hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile even if it is not, especially if it is accompanied by loud music or shouts of, “Get out of the way”. Often, the intentions of such concealment are malign; at best, they are hurrying to make fast-food deliveries and endangering people like me who are using the pavement for its proper purpose.
I must stress that we are not talking about this being a London-only issue. For example, newspaper reports show that, in Darlington, there were hundreds of complaints last year about youths on bikes wearing balaclavas and riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians, which is appalling—especially for the elderly or infirm. We need to put a stop to all of this. We need a new power, and we need it now, rather than waiting while the problem grows.
I should make it clear that I am not against cycling or the wearing of masks, scarves or helmets. This is not a prohibition. I merely want the police to have the powers they need to take action where they suspect that a crime is being committed. The powers in the Public Order Act to remove face coverings in designated areas or for local authorities to make public space protection orders—these were mentioned by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, in winding up—are inadequate. They may be useful for hotspots such as Oxford Circus— I strongly support such use—but they ignore the fact that cycle crime is widespread and undermining faith in both the police and the Government.
The Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, later argued in our debate on Report on 4 March that mobile phone theft is coming down a bit: it is down by 12% under this Government. I concede that—it is good news—but it is still at an appalling level, making life miserable for tens of thousands of victims. I made the point that, in 2023, there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London alone, using a motorcycle or an e-bike, and that a face covering was worn in more than 1,000 of those incidents.
We have also heard that the Department for Transport is planning legislation on what it likes to call “micro-mobility”. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, such legislation could in practice take another two years; in fact, it could take longer to secure a legislative slot. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that, when the Food Safety Act was passed, during which time she was a civil servant, it had been waiting for a slot for nearly 10 years; that was until Edwina Currie created a crisis and it became a political priority. In short, we cannot wait.
Moreover, this Bill is the right vehicle for this amendment on face coverings because it concerns the enforcement of criminal law by the police, rather than controls on cyclists, cycles and e-bikes per se. Countries such as Switzerland, France and Denmark are reported to have proscribed facial coverings in public spaces. I am not seeking to go that far.
To summarise, this amendment would allow a police officer—but not other enforcement officers, it should be noted—to stop a person cycling or riding a scooter who is wearing a face covering in such a way as to conceal their identity, and to require them to remove it. It would not ban such face coverings. The penalty would be a level-3 fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tackled this matter gently in Committee, hoping that the Minister would take the opportunity to bring forward a government amendment on Report. In the absence of a more positive response, I would normally have been minded to test the opinion of the House, but, in the interests of the expeditious transaction of House business, I will not do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 386 seeks to enable police officers, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support the work of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I have tabled this amendment for four obvious reasons.
First, the amendment seeks to close a clear operational gap. In a world of keyless and electric vehicles, removing the key no longer guarantees that the vehicle is disabled. Officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, the amendment would create a modest and practical power, not a sweeping new stop power. It would apply only after a lawful stop has taken place and would allow officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about the safety of officers, passengers and the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a live vehicle can reduce the risk of sudden flight, injury, interference with evidence and escalation at the roadside. Fourthly, the amendment contains proper safeguards. The tests of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the PACE codes.
This is a sensible, limited and necessary amendment that I hope the House will support. We are now living in an era when many police officers and members of the public are being harmed, because people can simply drive away as police officers do not have the right to make the situation safe by asking them to step out of the car. I have been through the reasons why this is a proportionate and useful amendment that fills a gap that needs to be filled. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 387A. Let me begin by explaining the reason and intent behind this simple amendment. On 20 January, further to an Urgent Question regarding business rates in the hospitality sector, I asked,
“are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? … We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs”.
In his response, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, stated:
“I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done”. ”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 139.]
The Labour MP Joe Powell stated recently:
“The crackdown on dodgy shops across the country is something the public cares deeply about. Our high streets are being hollowed out by illegitimate businesses that often don’t pay the tax they owe, sell illicit goods and have links to serious organised crime. That has real consequences for those that play by the rules, and for communities fed up with seeing illegal activity in plain sight”.
In response to an Oral Question on 5 March in your Lordships’ House regarding growth in cash-only businesses, the Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Watts —to whom I have given notice that I will be referencing him in this debate—stated that the businesses
“are not there for the customers’ benefit but, in some cases, for the business to avoid tax and other things”.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in response, stated that
“the Government are very aware ... HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around those exact points”. —[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. 1415.]
There is clearly cross-party support for the intention behind this amendment. In addition, I have been informed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute very much supports this amendment, stating that it would be extremely helpful to the trading standards profession and other enforcement agencies. If ever there was a case for sharing intelligence across Whitehall and HMRC together with the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and trading standards, this is it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 385, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and Amendment 386 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. On Amendment 385, masks on cyclists are a difficult area. We all know that cyclists wear masks for reasons of keeping their mouth warm when it is cold. Not everybody who covers their face is a criminal. However, it is clear that some groups of criminals are wearing masks to avoid detection, which the amendment intends to address.
The point I raised in Committee is that, obviously, an officer already has the power to stop any vehicle, so they can stop any cycle without the cyclist having to wear a mask, or for any other reason. My only point is that, if you intend to give this power, there is not much point in having the power if you do not have the power to ask them to remove their mask. So there are difficulties with it, but that is where my support is.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, makes a good point. For as long as I was a police officer, when you stopped vehicles, you always asked them to take the ignition key out to make sure that you did not get run over and they did not run off. But now, if they do not have the key in, the car still goes. Just as importantly, you are always wary of what they are sitting on—a gun, knife or whatever else it might be—so getting them out of the car can be helpful. But I have to say that have been times when they were so big I kept them in the car. There are times when you use discretion.
All that said, I think it is a good amendment when we consider the changes in vehicle design, and it is worth the Government thinking seriously about it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have real reservations about Amendment 385, which I am afraid I cannot support. I am glad that my noble friend is not thinking of testing the opinion of the House.
I speak as a cyclist and I fear, for the reason touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that what is proposed in Amendment 385 is likely to damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists. The truth is that, when bicycling, we all wear a variety of things that are capable of disguising our identity. I did this morning. One always wears a helmet, very frequently one wears goggles or spectacles, either as sunglasses or to keep the rain out, and when it is cold one wears a ski mask or scarf around the bottom of one’s mouth. All these things are capable of concealing one’s identity. I saw several people doing this today when I was bicycling in from King’s Cross. This will damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists.
I ask, rhetorically, what kind of person is the police officer likely to stop? Most probably, I suspect, it will be a person from an ethnic minority, who may be young too. Anybody who has been in Parliament as long as I have knows the trouble that you have from stop and search. That is proportionate, because the carrying of weapons is a serious risk. I acknowledge that it is perfectly correct that cyclists on occasion conceal themselves in order to seize bags and mobiles—that is true—but the remedy is disproportionate.
Furthermore, the amendment gives rise to an interesting question of principle. If it is right to impose this restriction in respect of cyclists, what about motorcyclists? They come into exactly the same category and are perfectly capable of snatching a bag or mobile, and most of them now have visors over their helmets. So, what are you going to do about that?
My own view is that, yes, there is a problem, but this is a disproportionate remedy. It will impact on innocent cyclists, as I venture to describe myself, and it will damage relationships between the police and the cycling community. I was very glad to hear that my noble friend indicated he will not test the opinion of the House because, had he done so, I would have voted against him.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I hear the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about Amendment 385. It would confer a power on a constable to stop a cyclist without any basis, reasonable or otherwise, to suspect that they are committing an offence or are about to commit an offence, when they may have, as the noble Viscount said, a perfectly good reason to be wearing a face mask. They may have influenza, which they do not wish to share with others, or they may be concerned to avoid diesel or petrol fumes on the road. Moreover, the amendment would confer an unrestricted power on the constable to require the person concerned to remove the face covering, with the sanction of a fine or imprisonment, without any requirement on the constable to consider whether that individual has a proper reason for wearing a face mask and without any defence of reasonable excuse. I too could not support such an amendment.
In Amendment 387A, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a powerful case about the mischief which afflicts local communities. My only concern is whether her proposed new clause would do much, if anything, to address this real mischief. The remedy would still depend on enforcement action by local authorities or the police, and would still depend on evidence which is difficult to obtain. I appreciate that police forces are independent, but the Government need to do all they can to encourage them to take action to deal with these problems. If that requires further resources then they should have further resources, but it should be a priority for effective policing.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Buscombe in the thrust of what she is seeking to achieve with her Amendment 387A. I do not think I heard my noble friend say that this would be a panacea or the answer to this complex situation, which clearly needs a multi-agency response. There seems to be a widespread agreement or understanding that there has recently been a substantial proliferation of essentially cash-only businesses on our high streets for nefarious purposes.
Many businesses may well be totally legitimate and carrying on as they have done for many years, but, as one example, in a town not very far away from where I live in the West Country, I recently counted 10 barbers or nail bars in a relatively short street. There are not enough nails or hair within that area, when, only a couple of years ago, approximately two would have sufficed. Either there has been a massive demand by the locals for these services or there are other motives. It seems clear that the police, trading standards and the Government know what is going on.
It is incumbent on the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to acknowledge the scale of what is happening and to give the House an indication of how a truly multi-agency and tough, robust approach will be taken to this issue to nip it in the bud. Where the public see acceptance of widespread law-breaking, there needs to be action for the law to continue to be respected.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord Jackson, especially around people stealing mobile phones. However, when I read proposed new subsection (2), about people covering their face to stop identification, I thought that the problem about that was the same as my noble friend Lord Pannick mentioned. I used to cycle a great deal and I always wore a scarf, partly because of fumes, as he said, but because I seemed to be ingesting a vast number of insects and found this really rather objectionable, whether I had had lunch or not. For that reason, I am rather worried about this amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 385 is the face covering amendment, in which I note that motorcyclists strangely are not covered but scooter riders are. I am not sure I see the need for a new general stand-alone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering.
The police already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, a discretionary power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require any motorist or anybody propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle to stop—and a mechanical vehicle would include motor scooters and motorcycles. That power is very wide. It is generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks. That is perceived as part of the compact between Governments and road users: if you use the roads, the corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic. An extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has rightly drawn attention to the specific case of mobile phone theft, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth, but his amendment does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. It seems to me that that was the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence. As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the need to keep warm, and others referred to the need to avoid fumes.
In terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity, there is the safety aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, considered the avoidance of germs, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, had additional and inventive reasons for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects. However, the serious point is that there can be dangers and there can be fear caused by people nefariously covering their faces. If there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking action. Without that, this amendment is hopeless. For my part, I am not happy when delivery drivers call at people’s homes completely covered up, because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not. At least a home owner can refuse ingress, but I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that.
On Amendment 386, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, it may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless or driverless cars. I should have thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that sometimes it is sensible not to get them to get out of the car if they look particularly big or threatening; nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment, but I would have thought it goes wider than driverless or keyless cars.
As to Amendment 387A from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I suspect that the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with her speech about organised criminal networks and driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns—she even covered the quiet lanes in our villages—but her amendment, on which I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate or non-tax-paying business from our streets. The amendment is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. For my part, before that amendment could be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that it would have some impact on these offences. I would also like to hear the Government’s view. At the moment, there is very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and also addressing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am concerned that the noble Lords feel, “What’s the point?” That is one of the reasons we are where we are in this country, which is in a terrible place. What I am suggesting is a small amendment that would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys; to start making life more difficult for them; to extend these closure orders so that we are being a little more efficient about use of police time and our courts. We are hearing that we are going to lose our juries because of lack of court time. This is an example where, if we had longer periods of closure, it would allow our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than just the few attacks that Machinize has carried out so far. We need to find as many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on. What message will it send to the public if we do not bother to do some of the easy bits to get this going?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will just say that was quite a long intervention, particularly for Report stage.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will answer very briefly, and perhaps on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as well, because I suspect that what we are saying is roughly the same. I am entirely with the noble Baroness on the question of juries, and on the question of needing to do something to reduce the kind of crime, particularly by organised criminal gangs, happening in our villages, towns and streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the need for more resources for policing. But the problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that there is no evidence that I can see, or that has been shown to us, that extending these periods would do anything significant to reduce crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lady Buscombe for their amendments.
Amendment 385 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jackson today, would, as we have heard, grant the police powers to stop a person riding a bike and wearing a face covering, and then require them to remove that. The context of this is the epidemic of phone theft. The United Kingdom now accounts for almost 40% of Europe’s phone thefts despite being only 10% of the market. In London, there is one mobile phone theft every seven and a half minutes. It is to that issue that my noble friend Lord Jackson is directing his amendment. He has pinpointed what I think we all accept is a very serious issue: the actions of intimidating masked cyclists stealing mobile phones. He set out ably the rationale for his amendment, although when doing so he indicated that he did not intend to test the opinion of the House.
Amendment 387A from my noble friend Lady Buscombe seeks to amend powers relating to closure notices and closure orders. As other noble Lords have recognised, the character of our high streets has changed dramatically over the past decade. Alongside the pressures of online retail and the economic challenges facing traditional business, we have seen the proliferation of premises that appear at best dubious and at worst directly connected to organised criminal activity. The scale of the problem should concern us all. We all know the types of shops at issue here; they appear almost overnight in our cities and towns’ prime retail locations, often with few customers but somehow able to sustain some of the highest rents in the country. Investigations by local authorities have uncovered counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco, unregulated vapes and sometimes sweets containing additives banned under UK food standards.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe proposes to alter the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by extending the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and the maximum period for closure orders from three months to 12 months. As my noble friend said so powerfully this afternoon, there are many institutions in support of this, notably the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which has been calling out for greater powers to tackle rogue retailers.
The present legal framework provides tools to deal with such premises, but in practice the existing time limits are often insufficient. A closure notice lasting only 48 hours may simply delay the problem rather than solve it. Criminals can wait out short closure periods, reopen under an altered business name and transfer activities elsewhere before enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations. Similarly, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may be inadequate where organised criminal networks are involved. By the time the order expires, the underlying criminal structure remains intact, ready to resume operations.
I fully recognise that the current periods were set out by the previous Conservative Government in 2014, but the passage of time—12 years since then—has demonstrated that more needs to be done to restore our high streets and communities, and to end the scourge of criminality blighting them both. Surely the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe is a step in the right direction and if she wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.
As we have heard, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington’s Amendment 386 addresses a practical and important issue. It has arisen from the evolution of modern vehicle technology and the difficulties police officers face on the front line. As he said, modern vehicles can remain powered even when drivers exit. The absence of a physical key means that officers cannot rely on the traditional safeguards that once existed. My noble friend’s amendment would provide officers with a clear statutory basis to direct drivers to exit the vehicle and remain outside while the stop is dealt with. It would also allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance or codes of practice to ensure that power is exercised consistently and appropriately.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister gives careful consideration to that amendment and to all amendments in this group. I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will speak to each in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, moved Amendment 385 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s winter of action that took place over the Christmas period, between the beginning of December and the end of January. That complemented a summer campaign that focused particularly on the issues that the noble Lord mentioned, namely anti-social behaviour and mobile phone theft. As the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory comments, the actions that we took over that 12-month period resulted in a 12% fall in mobile phone theft in London. That is still not good enough; it needs to fall further. It is a horrendous crime that is damaging to tourism and to the individual, but there has been a fall in the first year of this Government due to the hotspot action that we took. The winter and summer action campaigns took place in 650 town centres across the country, and were supported by additional resources from local police forces to deal with this issue. We know that we will see more analyst data in the coming months as to the impact of that action.
My point echoes some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. The Government’s road safety strategy was published on 7 January and sets out commitments to increase robust enforcement of road traffic laws to protect road users. It is under the auspices of the Department for Transport and indicates an important role for the police to play in taking action against the type of behaviour that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is concerned about.
As I stated in Committee, the police have a suite of powers under existent legislation to tackle street crime facilitated by bicycles and scooters and, as the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have mentioned, to address the use of face coverings intended to conceal identity. I encourage the police to make full use of those powers, especially in the crime hotspots that we have identified. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, permits the police to require individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas, so the police could designate a particular areas, such as a high street, where they believe crime is likely to take place. In those areas, the police have the powers under that legislation to remove face coverings.
There is a range of reasons for wearing a face covering that I am not going to pray in aid. Those were made very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. They focused on weather, ill health, fumes, and the added protein of insects going into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. These are all valid reasons. They are not ones I pray in aid strongly today, because the legislation is there.
This includes Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, referred to. It provides for anybody driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle to stop if directed to do so by a constable. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 permits police to seize motor vehicles that are being used in an anti-social manner. Furthermore, Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits police to seize motor vehicles. That includes, in this case, e-scooters being driven without an appropriate licence or insurance. I encourage the police to use those powers. Public space protection orders can also be used. Therefore, there are reasonable powers on the statute book that can be used to meet the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment.
I turn to Amendment 386, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I said in Committee that I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment, and it is supported by the Police Federation. I want to see police officers doing their vital job. As I mentioned, we recently published the road safety strategy. The consultation on that strategy includes proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences and specific proposals on the existing offence of failing to stop and report following a collision. It also seeks views on related measures around compliance when drivers are stopped by the police—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The Department for Transport is considering the results of that consultation and aims to respond when it closes on 11 May. I encourage noble Lords to refer this debate to that consultation.
I have great sympathy with the amendment. I want to ensure that police officers have the necessary tools to enforce our road traffic laws and make our roads safe, but I ask the noble Lord to wait for the outcome of the consultation. Following the consultation, there will be areas that we could potentially take forward at some point when legislative time allows.
I turn next to Amendment 387A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I say straightaway that she raises an important point. Not all the businesses that she mentioned are criminal outlets, but there are a number of businesses that are potentially involved in criminality. The new high streets task force is looking at whether the current data sharing between agencies supporting enforcement teams is appropriate as we want to maximise our response.
In the summer, the Government will publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy that will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including better sharing and exploitation of financial information. Further, the Home Office has a cross-government high streets illegality task force that is developing strategic long-term policy to respond to money laundering and associated illegality in UK high streets, including forms of economic crime that the noble Baroness mentioned, as well as tax evasion, illegal working, systematic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit, and issues to do with HMRC and trading standards.
In the summer of last year, I had the great honour of attending a raid in Birkenhead, in Merseyside. HMRC, the National Crime Agency, Merseyside Police and trading standards raided a premises that was allegedly—I use that word because I am not sure whether the matter has come to court yet—defrauding HMRC, selling illegal goods and purporting to be a legitimate business when it was not. That raid was perfectly reasonable, so action is currently being taken.
I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who supported a similar level of action, that the Government are trying to design a number of actions to drive out illegal businesses in a range of ways. As the noble Baroness said, they undercut legitimate businesses, reduce government tax revenue and illegally employ people. That is not good or acceptable, and we need to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment to increase the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and closure orders from three months to 12 months, would assist in that process.
In Clause 3, we are, as the noble Baroness knows, increasing the duration of closure notices from 48 to 72 hours. That gives the police and others time to investigate initially. If her proposal was taken, does she think that having more empty premises on the high street or in a village for 12 or six months is good for the high street as a whole? I am not sure that it is. We do need to drive out illegality, and I accept that there is illegality going on, but I hope I have pointed out the challenges we have. The increase to 72 hours in the Bill will help address operational challenges and give agencies more time to progress an application for a closure order and to protect any victims and the community in the interim while a closure order is sought.
The closure power itself, as the noble Baroness will accept, is a very powerful tool and routinely used in a housing context to protect the most vulnerable. I argue that the extension to 72 hours in Clause 3 is sufficient to provide respite to victims and to the community from anti-social behaviour. Closure orders are intended to provide short-term relief, which is why we are increasing their duration only by a further 24 hours. I say to the noble Baroness that, while a closure notice cannot prohibit access to anyone who habitually lives on the premises, a closure order can. Closure orders are intended as temporary, targeted measures, not long-term sanctions, but I accept that there is a real issue that needs to be addressed and I hope it can be with the measures I have outlined. What the Government are doing now, on a cross-government basis with HMRC, the Home Office, the police, the National Crime Agency and trading standards locally, is trying to root out where that illegality takes place, and further action will be taken in due course.
I hope that, with those reassurances, despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his indication that he is not going to press his and I hope that the assurances I have given and the favourable view I have of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, will allow us to complete a proper consultation on that point and that he will not press his amendment, either.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate, and thank in particular my noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his interesting intervention in the debate. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that these are permissive, discretionary powers, not blanket ban powers, and they are targeted at a particular subset of criminals. There is clearly a quantum difference between people passing through a locale who are dressed to cycle on the public highway and those who are flooding the zone on e-bikes, dressed in black, with helmets and face coverings, with a rucksack, who may wish to rob a shop or assault someone by snatching their mobile telephone. With all due respect to my noble friend, I think his concern is misplaced, but I fully respect the arguments he made.
I also thank the Minister. We have had a lot of debate on this issue, and I am partially reassured by the measures that the Government have brought forward that are currently in train. I hope that we can return to this issue, not least the breaking of the mobile phone theft model that organised crime is engaged in. In the meantime, as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Direction to exit vehicle following a lawful stop(1) Where a constable in uniform, or a traffic officer, has required a vehicle to stop under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (power of police to stop vehicles), the constable may direct the driver and any passenger to— (a) exit the vehicle, and(b) remain outside the vehicle for so long as is reasonably necessary for the exercise of the constable’s functions.(2) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person fails to comply with a direction given under subsection (1).(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(4) A constable may use reasonable force, where necessary and proportionate, to secure compliance with a direction given under subsection (1) for the purposes of officer safety, public safety, or prevention of escape or interference with evidence.(5) The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice or guidance relating to the exercise of powers under this section and such codes may be incorporated into Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.(6) In this section “vehicle” has the same meaning as in section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment closes an operational safety gap created by keyless and electric vehicles, where removing a key no longer disables a car. It provides a modest, post-stop direction power so officers can safely manage encounters outside a live vehicle. Safeguards are built in through reasonableness, proportionality and PACE-linked guidance.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am partially sated by what he said about the consultation that is coming along, but we all know that consultations can take for ever, and we may not get the outcome that I am seeking. I want to make the point that we have already had officers in London and in Essex injured by people deciding to drive away. In most other jurisdictions across the western world, this law has been put in place because they have already had deaths. I think it is just a matter of time before an officer is seriously hurt if we do not address this issue. But, as I said, the Minister was very generous in his answer and has given a way forward. I accept that way forward, so I shall not move my amendment.
Baroness Buscombe
“Duration of closure notices and orders: extension(1) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 77 (duration of closure notices)—(a) in subsection (2), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”, and(b) in subsection (3), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”.(3) In section 80(6) (power of court to make closure order), for “3” substitute “12”.(4) In section 82 (extension of closure orders)—(a) in subsection (7), for “3” substitute “12”, and(b) for subsection (8) substitute— “(8) The period of a closure order may be extended for another 12 months after the original extended 12 month period has elapsed, and there is no maximum duration of the closure order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the period in which the police and the magistrates’ courts may make closure notices and closure orders, to 7 days and 12 months respectively.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I heard what the Minister said and I support everything that the Government are trying to do to attack the scourge on our society, and all our villages and towns. I am sorry to say that the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, seem rather defeatist. If this is not a panacea—which it is not—it is a nudge to keep us finding different ways to intimidate these people and say to them, “Stop doing this and destroying our villages, towns and cities”. I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen and my noble friend on the Front Bench for their support and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Young of Acton
“Abolition of non-crime hate incidents (No.2)(1) Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom.(2) No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a NCHI.(3) Subsection (2) does not mean a police authority or police officer cannot record, retain or otherwise process an incident that is relevant for the prevention or detection of a crime, or for another policing purpose, provided it complies with incident recording guidance issued by the College of Policing or the Secretary of State.(4) Guidance in relation to incident recording must have due regard to the right to freedom of expression.(5) Any historic records of NCHIs which do not meet the incident recording threshold as set out in guidance issued by the College of Policing or the Secretary of State, must —(a) not be disclosed in a Disclosure and Barring Service check;(b) be deleted upon discovery.(6) For the purposes of this section—“non-crime hate incident” means any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, sex or transgender identity;“police authority” means a body specified in section 174(1);“police officer” means any person acting under the authority of a police authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would end the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensure that any future incident recording guidance has due regard to the right to freedom of expression.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Strasburger, for co-sponsoring this amendment. I was disappointed to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has apparently changed his mind. In Committee, he said:
“I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 177.]
I urge your Lordships to support this amendment because placing a statutory limit on what non-crimes the police can investigate you for and record against your name is in the interests not just of my noble friends on this side of the House, some of whom have had non-crime hate incidents recorded against them, but of noble Lords opposite and the Liberal Democrats. We must remember that the political wind can change. It is in your Lordships’ interests to place a statutory limit on what the police can investigate and record as non-crimes. It is in all our interests, and it really should be put on a statutory footing. For that reason, I intend to divide the House.
Baroness D'Souza
“Amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to introduce public interest compensation orders(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 133(b) (compensation orders), insert“, or(c) to make a payment to one or more relevant organisations for public interest or social purposes (“public interest compensation order”).(2) In this Chapter, “relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in Schedule 5A (relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders).”(3) After section 135 (making a compensation order), insert—“135A Public interest compensation orders(1) When convicting a person of a relevant offence, the court shall consider whether to issue a public interest compensation order, and what the terms of that order should be.(2) In this section “relevant offence” means an offence listed in Schedule 5B (relevant offences for public interest compensation orders).(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the relevant offences listed in Schedule 5B.(4) In determining whether to make a public interest compensation order against an offender, the amount to be paid under such an order, or to which relevant organisations the payments should be made, the court must, in addition to the factor in section 135(3), have regard to—(a) the rights of victims of human rights violations (inside or outside the United Kingdom) to receive effective reparation and remedy,(b) the fact that individuals who are not proven to be direct victims of the offender’s offence may nevertheless be victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related,(c) the broader impact of the offender’s offence on victims of human rights violations in the United Kingdom or in other countries, (d) where there is a large number of victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related, the urgency of victims’ needs (which may vary depending on the harms that they have suffered),(e) where the relevant offence is an offence under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the purposes of the relevant regulations and any human rights violations arising in connection with conduct that these regulations seek to discourage, and(f) whether it would be appropriate to make another type of compensation order and, if so, whether the offender has sufficient means to pay both orders, as well as the need to prioritise compensation to direct victims of the offender’s offence.(5) If the court considers issuing a public interest compensation order, the court may (but is not required to) ask the Secretary of State to recommend the relevant organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid and if the court makes such a request—(a) the Secretary of State shall, within 90 days (the “relevant period”), recommend to the court in writing one or more organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid (the “recommendation”) and in doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the same factors as under subsection (4) above;(b) the court may issue a public interest compensation order after the earlier of—(i) the court having received a recommendation, and(ii) the relevant period having expired;(c) if a recommendation has been made within the relevant period, the court may take it into account in issuing a public interest compensation order but shall not be bound by it.(6) The court may direct that confiscated funds be paid to a relevant organisation subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the organisations listed in Schedule 5A and the Secretary of State shall review the organisations listed in Schedule 5A at least annually.(8) If, under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State recommends one or more organisations that are not listed in Schedule 5B, the organisations recommended by the Secretary of State shall be considered relevant organisations for the purposes of the public interest compensation order at issue.(9) For the purposes of this section, a court may issue a public interest compensation order regardless of whether there is a direct connection between the offender’s conduct and the harm suffered by the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries of the public interest compensation order.”(4) After Schedule 5 (Breach, revocation and amendment of reparation order), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 5ARelevant organisations for public interest compensation ordersThe following organisations—The Trust Fund for Victims, created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.The Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, or any successor body or attached fund. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981.”(5) After Schedule 5A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 5BRelevant offences for public interest compensation ordersThe following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—Offences arising under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020. It would allow the courts to award compensation orders not only to individuals but also for public interest or social purposes, thereby enabling the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to be more readily used to compensate victims of offences under the UK’s sanctions legislation.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, I shall move the amendment, although my defence of it will be less than perfect, given that I have only just seen it. However, I must first thank the Minister for having kindly organised a meeting between the noble Lord and officials at the Home Office in order to discuss the Bill. That was extremely useful and important.
I support the Bill and am trying to find quickly the reason why I support these amendments. They would enable the courts to award compensation to public interest companies instead of simply to victims. The current mechanism is that, in the case of sanctions in particular, the moneys recovered from sanctions, which can often be substantial, go straight to the Government. Admittedly, it is important that the Government have resources in order to strengthen enforcement mechanisms, but it seems to me somewhat unfair that the victims do not get a look in in terms of compensation when, after all, the sanctions have been devised in order to protect victims and, indeed, reward them. Although we recognise that compensation is not always monetary, it is important that there is official acknowledgement of the wrongs that have been done to them.
The fact that the courts cannot enable the money derived to go to public interest compensation is an anomaly that I think needs to be corrected. One of the reasons for that that the Minister gave in the meeting, which, as I mentioned, he kindly set up, is that it would be difficult to determine who was a victim and what sort of compensation was necessary or just, simply because the number of victims of aggression, particularly in the context of conflict, is huge, wide and difficult to determine. The Government are concerned that the right money goes to the right victims. That is acknowledged, and it is a very important point.
However, Redress, which has drafted many of the amendments on this aspect of the Bill, has pointed out that there already exist relevant organisations that can receive funds for victims, including the Trust Fund for Victims, which was created by the Assembly of States Parties, in accordance with Article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. There is also the Register of Damage, for damage caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by resolution or any successor body or attached fund. There is also the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly through its resolution of 16 December 1981. It is also worth pointing out the relative ease that Ministers and the Government would have in keeping a register of those organisations that receive compensation funds and monitoring them.
In essence, it seems just and fair that the victims of aggression, particularly in the area of conflict, and those it is eventually agreed should receive compensation, should in fact receive that money; it goes to the Government—the Treasury and other sources within government—in order, as I have said, to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms. I entirely agree with that, but I am not sure that all the money should go there; some of it should be set aside for the victims. Again, I stress that the reason for this is that, although sanctions are set up to retrieve funds meant for the victims, the fact is that the victims do not always get this money. I beg to move.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank the Minister and his officials for all they have done on this clause. Might the Minister look at this again before Third Reading or at some other point to see whether it is possible to do what we have requested? I am grateful for all the meetings and the help we have had from everybody; let us hope that we can do something.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we support in principle Amendments 387C and 387D, the first of which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.
These amendments address a moral and legal imperative, ensuring that assets confiscated from those who violate our laws, particularly our sanctions regime, are used to provide redress to the victims of those very same violations. My own amendment in Committee focused on a ministerial power to create a fund via regulations but Amendments 387C and 387D would place this power where I believe it properly belongs: with the judiciary. By amending the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, these amendments would grant the Crown Court the discretion to award compensation for public interest or social purposes. This would ensure that, when a court deprives a defendant of the benefits of their crime, it can simultaneously direct those funds towards the restoration of the communities or individuals harmed.
As the organisation Redress has highlighted with great clarity, the UK is currently an outlier. Both the United States and the European Union have already established mechanisms to repurpose seized assets. In 2023, the US successfully transferred over $4 million seized from a Russian oligarch to support war veterans in Ukraine. Here in the UK, we have frozen assets on an unprecedented scale following the invasion of Ukraine, yet we operate in a regulatory lacuna where we can freeze and eventually confiscate but we cannot compensate effectively. Without these amendments, we are, in effect, telling the victims of state-sponsored aggression and human rights abuses that, although we will punish the perpetrator, we will do nothing for the survivor.
This is not about the convenience of the state; it is about clarity of justice. We must move away from a system that treats the proceeds of sanctions violations as a windfall for the Treasury and instead treat them as a resource for reparations. I urge the Minister to recognise that there is cross-party unanimity on this issue. Sympathy at the Dispatch Box in Committee was a start, but sympathy does not stop crime—and it certainly does not provide reparations.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, as we have heard, raise questions around how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to these amendments in my noble friend’s absence.
My noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear: to ensure that, where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused. In Committee, I spoke sympathetically on these amendments. I shall not seek to repeat the points I made then but other noble Lords explored how these proposals would interact with the existing confiscation and forfeiture regimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those are complex frameworks, and any changes to them must be carefully considered, but these amendments make an important point about ensuring that justice is not only punitive but restorative. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for moving this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Goudie for speaking in support of the noble Baroness.
As the noble Baroness and my noble friend know, I arranged a meeting for the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to discuss these matters with Redress. Both attended, as did other Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I set out then, as I did in Committee, the rationale for the Government’s position in relation to these amendments. I should say to my noble friend Lady Goudie that, although today I will restate the Government’s position, which is not to accept the amendments, we always keep these matters under review and will continue to do so.
The compensation of victims is an extremely serious issue and something that we take seriously. Last time out, in Committee, I laid out the UK’s various mechanisms for victim compensation; I will not repeat those now, in the interests of time. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raises this issue in the context of Russia’s war with Ukraine. I appreciate the continued support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the approach that has been tabled today, but, if I may, I shall speak to this amendment in the context of where the noble Lord, Lord Banner, was, I think, coming from. I acknowledge the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, has spoken to me on many occasions about the need for wider community compensation, rather than just for individuals, in the context of the war in Ukraine. I affirm this Government’s support for Ukraine. Indeed, the UK is already one of Ukraine’s largest supporters and donors, providing significant financial aid alongside working with international partners to support Ukraine as much as possible. The UK has already committed £21.8 billion, of which £13 billion is for military support, £5.3 billion is for non-military support and £3.5 billion is for UKEF cover; there is also an ongoing commitment to provide £3 billion annually either for as long as it takes or until 2030-31. We are also supporting, along with the G7, loans backing profits belonging to Russian sovereign assets in the EU, as well as the interest on those assets being put towards Ukrainian interests.
Therefore, there are a number of issues on which we are fully supportive and where we are using resources to meet the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. However, I say to him and to those who have spoken in favour of the amendment today that, given the limited number of cases to which these amendments would apply, they would create only a minimal impact on the people of Ukraine. I suggest that it would be better for us, in the initial stages, to focus our efforts on the larger international mechanisms for compensation, in line with our international partners, which provide far greater funds. I have pointed in particular not just to the UK’s direct taxation commitment but to the G7’s $50 billion ERA loan, which is backed by interest generated from Russian sovereign assets in the EU and the UK.
I understand the noble Baroness’s support on this issue. I particularly understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, around this matter, as well as his desire to help and support our friends in Ukraine; I completely share that desire. However, following the rationale that I have laid out, I suggest that this would be best done through the current mechanisms of government, not through these amendments. I will keep all matters under review but I feel that these amendments would distract the UK—and, indeed, our partners—from the core principle of supporting Ukraine, particularly in this time of great need. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to withdraw Amendment 387C.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister as always for his response and for the support that the Government are providing, particularly in Ukraine after the Russian aggression. I still feel, however, that the definitions within the Bill of “victim” and “loss” are too narrow and indirect victims are clearly not eligible. We all know that there are many tragic indirect victims of war crimes. It is very likely that there will be more sanctions to come and that there will be further need for victim compensation. At present, there are 2,500 Russia-targeted sanctions. The Government still retain most of the proceeds of these.
Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said about keeping this under review. Given the fact that I do not think these amendments have been properly addressed by me—although they have by the Member opposite and by the Opposition Front Bench—I will not press them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 387C.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“51A In section 161E(5) (making an income reduction order) (as inserted by section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2026), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) section 15A (where court sentences before confiscation proceedings).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds, to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill, an amendment of a provision inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code.
Lord Katz
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require child cruelty offenders to notify specified matters to the police.(2) “Child cruelty offender” means a person who, in England and Wales—(a) is convicted of a child cruelty offence,(b) is found not guilty of a child cruelty offence by reason of insanity,(c) is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against the person in respect of a child cruelty offence, or(d) is cautioned in respect of a child cruelty offence after the person has admitted the offence,on or after the day on which the regulations come into force.(3) A “child cruelty offence” means an offence listed in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences).(4) The regulations may in particular make provision—(a) about the period for which a child cruelty offender is subject to notification requirements (which may be an indefinite period);(b) about the occasions on which, or intervals at which, a child cruelty offender is required to give notifications;(c) about the time limits for giving a notification;(d) about how notifications are to be given to the police (which may include provision for notifications to be given to persons authorised by the police in accordance with the regulations);(e) requiring a child cruelty offender to allow photographs and fingerprints to be taken for the purposes of verifying the offender’s identity; (f) requiring or authorising a person with parental responsibility for a child cruelty offender to give notifications, where the offender is under 18;(g) for specified notification requirements to apply to a child cruelty offender only if the offender has been given notice by a police officer, in accordance with the regulations, that those requirements apply;(h) for reviews of whether a child cruelty offender should remain subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements;(i) for a child cruelty offender to cease to be subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements, following a review.(5) If the regulations make provision for a child cruelty offender to be subject to notification requirements for an indefinite period, they must make provision under which the child cruelty offender may cease to be subject to the notification requirements following a review.(6) The matters which may be specified in the regulations as matters which must be notified include, in particular, any matter a relevant offender is required to notify to the police by or under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as it has effect in England and Wales).(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by the regulations;“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations imposing notification requirements on persons who commit child cruelty offences.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to move the government amendments in this group, which will establish the powers needed to introduce a clear and robust regime for managing those who have committed appalling child cruelty offences. Before turning to the detail, I pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of campaigners, including Tony and Paula Hudgell. Their tireless advocacy, grounded in personal tragedy and driven by a determination to protect other children from harm, has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate and legislative action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Helen Grant MP, for their constructive engagement in helping us to deliver this important step forward.
We continue scrutiny of this Bill at a pivotal moment for the management of dangerous offenders. The police system underpinning the sex offenders register is transitioning from the legacy ViSOR database to the new multi-agency public protection arrangements, which will deliver modern, integrated risk-management capabilities. At the same time, as part of the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, we are examining how best to strengthen community-based offender management across the system. In that context, and in recognition of the complexity of this area, we have taken the decision to provide for the framework of a new scheme in the Bill, while setting out the operational detail in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Government’s amendments therefore create the power to establish a set of familiar tools for police to apply in managing such offenders: notification requirements; clear rules about what must be notified, when and how; and the powers necessary for the police and partner agencies to assess and respond to risk consistently and proportionately. Important safeguards and parameters are built into the structure of these powers to ensure that the scheme adheres strictly to the framework approved by Parliament. The qualifying offences and thresholds in the new schedule introduced by Amendment 395A ensure that the regime is squarely focused on serious harm to children arising from their own caregivers, including offences such as child cruelty, causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm, and female genital mutilation. This is a coherent and tightly drawn list which will close the safeguarding gap identified by campaigners.
The regime provides for maximum penalties which are consistent with those faced by registered sex offenders and proportionate to the gravity of deliberately evading such monitoring. It ensures that any entry or search must be authorised by a justice of the peace and used solely for the purposes of risk assessment. Regulations establishing the scheme will be developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and the operational flexibility that is required to respond swiftly to the evolving landscape and potential changes to patterns of offending or evasion.
For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, not to press his Amendment 389 and to join the House in supporting the Government’s approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the government amendments are welcomed from these Benches. In their scope and depth, they ensure that offenders who have committed the heinous crime of child cruelty will now be required to notify, and will be monitored carefully to ensure that their access to children is supervised to protect children from such offenders. As we debated in Committee, these offences need to be brought into the safe scope of high-level offender management.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, about Tony Hudgell and his family. They are doughty campaigners who have shone a spotlight on an area that most of society has ignored over the years.
I read Amendment 389 with interest. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the Minister, whether proposed new subsection 6, identifying relevant offences, would be covered in government Amendment 388C.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, concerning the creation of a child cruelty register. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of this proposal over the course of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House and the other place.
I remind all noble Lords that the reforms before us today, as we have heard, are the result of determined campaigning over a long period. I place on record the sincere thanks of the Opposition Benches to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell, whose tireless advocacy has brought this issue to national attention. I am incredibly pleased that Parliament has responded to this campaign and I welcome very much the Government’s decision to accept our proposals and bring forward their own amendments to establish a notification regime for child cruelty offenders. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for his engagement on this matter.
As noble Lords will appreciate, there remain differences of view about the precise scope of the register and the offences that should fall within it. From these Benches we have consistently argued that the register should cover a broader range of offences to ensure that the system captures a full spectrum of conduct that poses a continuing risk to children. While the Government’s proposals do not go as far as we might have wished in that regard, they nevertheless represent real progress and a clear acknowledgement that the existing gap in the law must be closed.
We welcome the Government’s willingness to move in this direction and hope that, as the policy is implemented, there will remain scope to review and strengthen the regime where necessary. I have one question for the Minister. Because it is vital that the register is established as soon as possible, can he give from the Dispatch Box an indication of possible timelines for when that might happen?
Once again, I thank Paula Hudgell and Helen Grant MP, who have performed a tremendous service in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament and the wider public. I hope that all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House will join me in recognising their efforts. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be moving Amendment 389 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the consensual approach taken by the Liberal Democrat and the Opposition Front Benches. I will answer the questions in the order that they were given.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the offences listed in proposed new subsection 6 to be inserted by the Opposition’s Amendment 389. The offences that are covered are listed in government Amendment 395A and largely overlap with those in the opposition amendment.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we will set up the register as soon as practicable when the new MAPPS system is up and running. I cannot commit to a more solid timeline than that, but I hope he will take the way that the Government have responded to the campaign and the amendments as a promissory note, shall I say, that we are taking this matter very seriously and will act with as much speed as we can practically muster. With that, I beg to move.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: enforcement(1) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may provide for a person to commit an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they—(a) fail to comply with a specified notification requirement, or(b) in purported compliance with a specified notification requirement, notify information that they know to be false.(2) The maximum penalty specified for an offence must not exceed (but may be less than)—(a) on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term of the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term of 5 years or a fine (or both).(3) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may confer on a constable power to enter and search relevant premises.(4) The regulations must provide for the power to be exercisable only—(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace (which may authorise the use of reasonable force),(b) where it is necessary for a constable to enter and search the premises for the purpose of assessing the risks posed by a child cruelty offender who is subject to notification requirements, and(c) where a constable has sought, and been unable to obtain, entry to the premises for that purpose on at least two occasions.(5) Premises are “relevant premises” if there are reasonable grounds to believe (because of a notification given under the regulations or otherwise) that the child cruelty offender resides, or may regularly be found, at the premises.(6) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders);“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause allows regulations under my previous new clause to create offences, and to confer powers of entry on constables.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: power to amend Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences)(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend—(a) Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) (child cruelty offences);(b) section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation) for the purposes of that Schedule.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may add an offence to Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) only if—(a) the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the harm that may be caused to persons under 18 by conduct constituting the offence, and(b) the offence is not listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences to which Part 2 of that Act applies) (disregarding for this purpose any condition subject to which an offence is listed in that Schedule). (3) Where an offence is capable of being committed against a person aged 18 or over, an amendment adding it to Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) must include a condition that the victim was under 18.(4) An amendment of Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) or section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation) within subsection (5) does not apply to convictions, findings and cautions before the amendment takes effect.(5) An amendment is within this subsection if it—(a) adds an offence,(b) removes a condition relating to an offence, or(c) changes a condition in such a way as to cause an offence committed by or against a person of a particular age in certain circumstances, or resulting in a particular disposal, to be within the Schedule when it would not otherwise be.(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause confers powers to amend the list of child cruelty offences in my new Schedule inserted before Schedule 21.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation(1) In section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders)(2), a reference to a conviction includes a reference to a finding of a magistrates’ court, where the court makes an order under section 37(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, that the accused did the act charged.(2) The following provisions do not apply for the purposes of section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders)(2)—(a) section 82(2) of the Sentencing Code, and(b) section 187(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(conviction with absolute or conditional discharge deemed not to be a conviction).(3) A reference in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to an offence (“offence A”) includes—(a) an attempt or conspiracy to commit offence A;(b) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to which offence A is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person believed would be committed;(c) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of offence A.(4) References in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to a person’s age are to the person’s age at the time of the offence.(5) References in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to imprisonment include—(a) a period of detention which a person is liable to serve under a detention and training order;(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution;(c) a sentence of detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; (d) a sentence of custody for life under section 272 of the Sentencing Code (including one passed as a result of section 210A of the Armed Forces Act 2006); (e) an extended sentence under section 254 of the Sentencing Code (including one passed as a result of section 221A of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of my new clauses and new Schedule about notification requirements for child cruelty offenders.
Baroness Sater
“Review of the criminal records disclosure regime(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, undertake a review of the operation of the criminal records disclosure regime in England and Wales.(2) The report must, in particular, consider—(a) the impact of criminal record disclosure and DBS checks on individuals’ access to education, training and employment,(b) the criteria and processes for filtering and disclosure on basic, standard and enhanced checks, and(c) whether legislative, procedural or regulatory changes may be necessary to ensure that the regime appropriately balances public protection with rehabilitation.(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult relevant bodies, including employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and representative organisations for people with convictions.(4) A report of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament within 12 months on the operation of the criminal records disclosure regime, including the impact of DBS checks on access to education, training and employment and whether any legislative, procedural or regulatory changes are needed.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within 12 months of the Act coming into force a report reviewing the criminal records disclosure regime. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who unfortunately cannot be here today, for supporting it.
The purpose of the amendment is straightforward: to ensure that a thorough review of the criminal records disclosure regime is undertaken within 12 months. We know that having a criminal record can have profound consequences for individuals’ ability to rehabilitate and move forward with their lives. It is therefore important that we understand whether the current regime is operating proportionately and whether changes might be required to ensure that it strikes the right balance between public protection and rehabilitation. Many noble Lords have in the past raised concerns about aspects of the criminal records disclosure regime. I believe that this is a timely moment to bring this amendment forward, so that we can look at this in the round.
Your Lordships will know that I have previously spoken in this House on, and put forward amendments where I have highlighted, the postcode lottery that can arise when an offence is committed before the age of 18 but the individual is not brought before a court until after their 18th birthday. In these circumstances, for example, a young person who might otherwise have received a youth disposal such as a referral order may instead be sentenced as an adult, simply because their case reaches court after they have turned 18. That difference can have significant long-term consequences, including for what later appears on a Disclosure and Barring Service check and therefore for access to employment, education and training, and indeed their rehabilitation prospects.
I thank the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt —for engaging constructively with me on this matter. Her willingness to meet me shows that there is genuine openness within government to look at this anomaly more closely. The Justice Secretary has recently indicated that the Government are considering opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime, particularly in relation to childhood offences, with the aim of ensuring that the system is clear and proportionate and does not unduly harm future job prospects. That signals recognition that reform is needed.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be helpful for the review also to consider the anomaly and to begin to address the issues I have concerns about, which I believe are deeply unfair. In preparing the report, the Secretary of State would be asked to consult widely, including with employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and organisations representing people with convictions, to ensure that the review reflected the experience of those most affected. Accepting this modest amendment would be a good and constructive step forward: simply a request for a review that could help inform future policy.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I very much support this amendment. In Committee, I tabled an amendment, which was debated—the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, was acting Minister at the time—and would have prevented a criminal record being kept for children who are prosecuted by private rail companies under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and criminal records being created as a result, because there seemed to be a practice in certain magistrates’ courts for prosecuting such children for what were inadvertent, youthful transgressions, which were wrong but certainly did not merit a criminal record which, as I understand it, could be searched by potential employers for between eight and 11 years. I would like a commitment that this review, if it takes place, will cover that sort of case. It is all part of that bigger picture of children having criminal records created against them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to give enthusiastic support to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I think that a criminal record disclosure regime is very important—we all understand that we do not want the worst of the worst working with children and so on —but the impact on rehabilitation is quite serious.
On Monday evening, it was therefore a great relief when the Minister said to those of us who were worried that non-crime hate incidents might be stored on a criminal database that could be used to prevent future employment or volunteering opportunities that that was a misplaced concern—although having the word “hate” by your name on a police database might not be what one would want.
In this instance, we are talking about people who have criminal convictions, have been in prison or have been serving their time. In working with former prisoners, I have known former drug addicts and gang members who have been invaluable as volunteers or in working with young people or youth services, but many of them are simply kept out of being able to help because of the barring scheme. A group of ex-prisoners that I had some dealing with wanted to do some work with care homes—we desperately need people to work in care homes. They were fully rehabilitated but were basically going to be barred from doing so. That seemed to me to be unfair and counterproductive. There was also a teenage victim of a grooming gang—a victim—who was convicted for soliciting prostitution at the age of 16. She should get a pardon, of course, but the main thing is that she is barred even from going on her own child’s school trips. She desperately wants to help out in the school, but she cannot.
These things should be looked at quite straight- forwardly. It is tricky, because I am aware that we do not want threatening people to work with, for example, children, but we should not be risk averse. I commend the noble Baroness on the wording, which is an appropriate balance between public protection and rehabilitation. There is no point putting people in prison and telling them that they will be different people and be given a second chance if they rehabilitate but then denying them that second chance when they leave prison. They might as well just carry on being criminals. I think this amendment is, as they say, a no-brainer, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 390A from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I just want to give a practical look at this. As many noble Lords know, I have been a youth and community worker for well over 35 years now, and one of my biggest projects was to run a job club. Many of the young men in particular in my job club were very disappointed when they could not get work. Invariably, they had had some brush with the law that meant prison time, had done the work on themselves to be productive members of society, and came out, but then the barring code, DBS and all kinds of things got in the way. What do you believe they returned to then? They returned to the only skill they had, which was criminal activity. Most of the most serious criminals I dealt with—the repeat criminals, the ones that you really needed to cross the road for—were so because, at that moment when we could have assessed them slightly differently, when their youthful transgressions could have been looked at in a different light, we did not, and they then became a really serious, long-term problem to us all.
When I spoke to a group of young men very recently, and I keep saying men because I have been doing work with gang-involved young men, one of them finished our conversation by saying to me, “You”—by that, he meant us—“are doing it to yourselves”. He said that if we continue to view him as a criminal, he will continue to behave as a criminal.
We are all certain of two things: we do not want people who have committed crimes of the worst kind to go unpunished and get away with them, and we want to protect public safety. But since these rules first came in, some time ago now, our protection awareness and the rules have greatly advanced. As a trustee of a charity that does youth work, my job was to look at people’s criminal records and help to assess whether we could help them to work safely with our young people. Usually, we could do that, and for those for whom we could not we had to ask them to leave.
The idea that the Government should have a review is long overdue. If you really want to rehabilitate people, you have to show them that there is some chance that they can re-enter society and make up for what they may have done incorrectly. We understand that it is a balance but, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, the wording of the amendment contains that balance. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for the meeting that she had with my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, had a different meeting. We entirely support the amendment and were very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, talked about the principles of agreeing with the review. We think that is very important.
We absolutely agree with the principle, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, that children should not be adversely affected by backlogs, which they have absolutely no control over at all. There is a broader principle: the age at which an offence or caution took place should absolutely be the age at which the offender is dealt with. With regard to the review, we believe that youth cautions and conditional cautions should not remain on the young person’s record once they have become an adult. We hope that that will be taken into account in the review as well.
I echo the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the very careful wording by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, in proposed new subsection (2)(c) about ensuring that
“the regime appropriately balances public protection with rehabilitation”.
That seems to be common sense. We endorse that and hope that the Government will use it as the basis for their review.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sater for tabling this amendment on a hugely important issue. I can be relatively brief because she gave ample reasons for the amendment. When criminal records are disclosed, they should be done so regularly and proportionately across all cases. She gave many compelling reasons for the amendment and, as she said, it is modest. It does not ask much of the Secretary of State. I agree absolutely with my noble friend that this system would simply benefit from an updated review. For all those reasons, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her amendment, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Perhaps I should explain why I am responding to it instead of my noble friend Lady Levitt, who has had considerable engagement with the noble Baroness and other Members of the House on this matter. The amendment relates to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, so I am responding to it. In principle, there are a number of areas where there is crossover between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. I noted the support from the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Brinton, for the general principles of the amendment.
The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to strike a balance between supporting ex-offenders to put their past behind them and ensuring that we keep people safe. The regime plays a crucial role in helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for roles in health, social care and education. It also aims to avoid the disclosure of old and trivial offending so that people can make fresh starts and get on with their lives. We all know that employment and a fresh start are critical to preventing reoffending. The significance of employment—along with housing, family support and optimism for the future —for reducing reoffending should never be underestimated.
We keep the regime regularly under review as a matter of course, so that it remains fit for purpose and responds to concerns as they arise. I recognise the value of stepping back and carrying out a more strategic assessment, which the amendment would do.
I know that noble Lords know this, but the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, gave a commitment on 2 December, in response to the Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I, that the Government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is clear and proportionate, particularly—given the discussions we have had and reflecting what my noble friend Lady Levitt had said—in relation to childhood offences. My department—the Home Office—and the Ministry of Justice are working together to look at the next steps.
We intend to publish a consultation that is, in a sense, the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, asks for, setting out proposals for specific reforms on disclosure of childhood criminal records. Currently, the plan is to have that consultation published by the end of the year. If we can do it earlier, we will. There is a lot of work to do but I want to get it done as quickly as possible and I know that my noble friend Lady Levitt will want to do the same. I can certainly give the assurance that we will have that consultation out by the end of the year, and that will, I think, provide the strategic review that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks.
I believe that it is right to prioritise consideration of how the regime affects those who offend as children. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Levitt and the work that has been done on engagement to date, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for the external pressure she has put on us on these matters but, in the light of those reassurances, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister and am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bailey all spoke very positively and passionately about the amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely positive response and look forward to hearing more about the consultation at the end of the year. Speed is of the essence and we would like to see it as soon as possible. We have heard, from me and others, about lots of anomalies in other situations involving criminal records that we think we should deal with, but I thank the Minister again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Misconduct investigations where officer acquitted(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.(2) In section 13B –(a) in subsection (1), at end insert “but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”, and(b) in subsection (2), at the beginning, leave out “The” and insert “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”.(3) After section 13B, insert—“13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct(1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter.(2) This section applies where—(a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3,(b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of substantial new evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be significantly likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(4) In this section—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the investigation related; (b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority, local policing body or relevant review body (as the case may be).”(4) After paragraph 24C of Schedule 3, insert—“Investigation where person acquitted in criminal proceedings
24D (1) This paragraph applies where—(a) an investigation of a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter (“the index investigation”) has concluded and the final report has been submitted to the relevant authority,(b) the relevant authority has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4F),(c) as a result of the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(d) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(2) In this paragraph—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the index investigation related;(b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority, local policing body or relevant review body (as the case may be).(3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant authority may not initiate a new investigation, re-open an investigation or order a re-investigation against the relevant person in relation to the same complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter that was the subject of the index investigation.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of substantial new evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the index investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be significantly likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.”(6) In paragraph 25 of that Schedule—(a) after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—“(4DA) The Director-General may not direct that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4C)(b) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to that investigation.”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (4E) insert—“(4EA) The local policing body may not make a recommendation to the appropriate authority that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4E)(a) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to the conduct to which the investigation related.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from investigating an officer where that officer has already been investigated and acquitted in court for the same conduct matter.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 391 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. In Committee, speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I raised the case of the police officer, Martyn Blake, whose case served as the perfect example of the difficulties of serving as a police firearms officer.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct, as is the norm, investigated Martyn Blake following a police firearms operation in London that resulted in the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba, and he was subsequently charged with murder. The case proceeded through the full criminal justice process and the evidence was examined in open court before jury under the rigorous standards of criminal law. After hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted him.
For most people, an acquittal, after an initial investigation and then a full criminal trial, would represent the end of the matter, but in this case, despite the acquittal, the IOPC indicated that the circumstances of the case would still be examined further in the context of police misconduct proceedings. The IOPC then reopened those proceedings, constituting its second investigation and the third investigation overall.
Whatever one’s view of the original incident, the situation raises the question of how many times an officer should be required to defend themselves for the same conduct. We have had restrictions and double jeopardy since the 12th century, but this appears to be triple jeopardy. Police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted and then reinvestigated. My amendment would amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that where a police officer has been investigated for a complaint or a conduct or DSI matter, prosecuted in a criminal court and acquitted, the same conduct cannot simply be reinvestigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct unless there is substantial new evidence. That last point is important.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the law of double jeopardy by permitting retrial where there was new and compelling evidence. I completely understand that if new evidence comes to light, the IOPC may need to reopen an investigation. There is a safeguard in the amendment to ensure the fairness of the police complaints system. I do not dispute the importance of police accountability; public confidence in policing depends on robust oversight, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a vital role in that framework, but accountability must also be balanced with basic principles of justice. When the criminal courts have examined a case and reached a verdict, there must be a strong presumption that the matter is settled.
I know only too well that police officers make difficult and sometimes life and death decisions in circumstances that are fast-moving, dangerous and highly uncertain. They do so in order to protect the public. When something goes wrong, it is entirely right that their actions are scrutinised carefully and independently, but it is equally important that the process is fair, proportionate and finite.
I hope that the Minister will realise the harrowing mental burdens placed on the police and accept the amendment. All I am asking is for him to meet me half way and bring something at Third Reading or perhaps commit to bringing forward a proposal along these lines in the upcoming Bill on police reform. If he does not accept my amendment today and cannot give me an assurance about police reform, I will seek to divide the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In family cases of sexual or physical abuse, someone can be tried and acquitted but then dealt with in the family court on very much the same evidence. That is partly because there is a difference in the standard of proof, which, in a criminal case, is much greater than in civil and family proceedings. Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, for two reasons. First, it imposes a regime which is wholly different from the regulatory practices in every other regulatory authority. For the last 15 years, I have practised exclusively as a legal adviser to regulatory panels, including for doctors, nurses, midwives, healthcare practitioners and social workers. In each and every case, a practitioner, a registrant, who has been acquitted by a criminal court can be brought before the regulatory panel to face misconduct proceedings. That is because the standard of proof is different: the criminal acquittal means that they failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the regulatory panel is entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct has been made out.
That takes me to the second point. Not only is it contrary to all the practices that we as a Parliament have imposed on other regulatory authorities, which I have identified, it is contrary to the merits. It may very well be that an officer who has properly been acquitted is none the less, on the balance of probabilities—the test within the regulatory authority—guilty of misconduct. I believe that that option should remain. I am very close to the position of the noble and learned Baroness, who draws from her experiences in the family courts. My experience is in regulatory proceedings, and what is proposed in this amendment is profoundly different from what we have imposed on the regulatory authorities.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, set out the case for very well. It is linked particularly to the Chris Kaba case.
I will try to address the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He made a fair point. There are times when, even if someone has been acquitted of a criminal offence—in this case, a charge of murder—disciplinary issues might be discovered which are not directly related to the death but a professional body may want to address, such as ammunition not being signed out properly or something else that was important but not relevant to a criminal charge. The concern in this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained, is that it appears from the press release, which is all we have to go on, that the IOPC basically laid its charge based on the criminal case—the charge of murder. That might seem very difficult to understand.
The amount of time this takes—I am sure that this can happen in medical cases—is substantial. In the Chris Kaba case, from event to criminal case took about three years. The officer will probably wait another two years. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, addressed the double jeopardy point—it is probably nearer to triple or more jeopardy. There are two or three bites of the cherry as far as the officer is concerned, although we must look at it beyond the officer’s understanding.
There is first an assessment of whether there is a criminal charge. Should that be negative, there is then a misconduct charge. Should both be negative, if there is a death involved, which we are particularly concerned about with respect to police firearms officers, a coroner’s court will be convened, after waiting for the two previous decisions. At the end there can be a verdict of unlawful killing, at which point the whole thing starts again. All this accounts for the very long processes. Why can these decisions not be considered in parallel rather than sequentially? I have still not really heard a proper explanation for that.
If the IOPC considered in the police case that there was gross misconduct or a conduct issue, why did it not lay a charge at the beginning? Why did it wait for the outcome of the criminal case, unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has suggested, more evidence had been discovered in the criminal case that might have made a difference? No one has said that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord was suggesting, I think, that it is wrong to hold a subsequent disciplinary proceeding on precisely the same facts that gave rise to the acquittal. But in the regulatory proceedings of which I have been speaking, that is precisely the case. Very often a practitioner or registrant who has been acquitted before a criminal court then comes before a regulatory panel facing misconduct proceedings on precisely the same facts. My point is that the amendment is seeking to put in place a regime wholly different from that which operates in every other profession, and deprives people of the option of finding an officer guilty of misconduct when, on the balance of probabilities, the officer is guilty of misconduct.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am not going to try to argue the case; I am making my argument, and the noble Viscount is making his. The other regulatory bodies do not have something called the IOPC, a body that is charged with investigating this type of thing. That is fine, but it imposes a further burden and further process. Two groups are badly affected: the family of the person who has died and the officer in the case. Of course, I make the case for the officer, but both matter in that both are badly damaged. For me, this is a subset of the later discussion we will have about police firearms officers, but it is just one indication of some of the aggravation of their position, when, in every case, when charged, they have been found not guilty. In the Kaba case, following a three-year process, it took three hours for a criminal court to find that there was no case to answer and the officer was found not guilty.
It is very hard to understand why the IOPC, after all that time, having not charged in the first place at the time of the event, suddenly instigated the case at a later stage. For all those reasons that I have tried to identify, police firearms officers, who take incredible risks on our behalf, are an important group that we have to consider and, unless we find some comfort for them in law, the danger is they will turn around and stop doing it on our behalf. I think this is a help. I accept the fundamental point from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it may be inconsistent, but I would argue that we are in a pretty inconsistent place now so far as the law and the process is set up.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can I add a further point to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with which I agree? The purpose of the criminal proceedings is distinct from the purpose of the disciplinary regulatory proceedings. The purpose of the criminal proceedings, of course, is to decide whether this individual should face a serious sanction of many years in prison for what is alleged. The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is entirely different. It is to protect the public and decide whether a person who serves as a police officer is an appropriate person in all the circumstances to continue to do so.
It is uncomfortable, but it may well be the case that the director-general, on reviewing all the evidence, takes the view that this particular officer should not continue to be in the police force, should not continue to hold the responsibilities that he or she does, and should not continue to have the powers that he or she does. If this amendment is passed, we will be putting the director-general in an impossible position. It will mean that he or she has to take no action to seek to impose disciplinary proceedings on an officer against whom there may be very considerable evidence that they are simply unsuitable to remain in the police service.
That is very similar, I would suggest, to the situation the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, drew attention to, because the purpose of the family law proceedings is entirely different to the purpose of the criminal proceedings. The purpose of the family law proceedings is to decide whether the child needs to be protected and therefore those proceedings can quite properly continue in relation to the same allegations that were rejected by the criminal court.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, can I add my two-penn’orth to this? I declare my interest as the co-chair of the national police ethics committee, but I am speaking more as a serving Bishop. I have to hear disciplinary complaints against clergy. Sometimes those clergy have committed something which is being investigated first by the police. To answer the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, often the police tell us, “We don’t want you interfering until we have finished”. If the result of the criminal proceeding is that the person is convicted, I can then do quite a summary process in terms of applying a penalty or perhaps depriving that member of the clergy from serving in their parish, perhaps banning them from ministry for a time or for life. But all of that is very much on that balance of probabilities, on the civil standard. It is very different from the criminal standard.
There are many cases where the police investigation may not lead to a trial or may lead to a trial and acquittal but there are still major issues around the suitability of that person to be a minister of religion, such as their safeguarding ability. I need to be able to reassure my people in my diocese by following a proper disciplinary process on exactly the same facts as the criminal case was dealing with, but to that very different standard of proof.
Again, as chair of police ethics, I think the ability of the police to be respected by the public, for me, demands that there are occasions when somebody who has been acquitted at the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt should still then face the disciplinary matter at that civil standard of the balance of probabilities, so I could not support this current amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 392 in my name is about fairness, discipline and humanity.
First, misconduct investigations that drift on for months and years are damaging to everyone involved—the officer, the family, the complainant and public confidence in the system. Secondly, where these cases run on endlessly, the consequences can be severe. Long investigations place huge strain on mental health and, in the worst cases, such prolonged uncertainty has been linked to suicide. That alone should make this House pause and ask whether the current system is working as it should. Thirdly, I want to stress that this amendment does not block proper investigation and does not touch criminal matters. It simply says that, after 12 months, there should be independent scrutiny by a legally qualified person so that cases can move on properly and an officer can either be brought back into service or removed from the service without delay. Finally, swift justice is a matter for all involved. It matters for the innocent officer who should not be left in limbo. It matters for the complainants who deserve prompt and credible outcomes. Justice delayed helps no one; this amendment would bring greater urgency, greater accountability and a greater sense of fairness to the police disciplinary system.
Morale in the police force, particularly in the Met, is very low and one of the things that officers continually point to is the length of investigations when an officer is accused of something. This is not to say whether the officer is innocent or not—that is a whole other affair—it is the length of the investigation. If you speak to any of your local bobbies, particularly if they are an officer, they are likely to tell you they are considering leaving. When you probe a bit deeper, this question of investigations always comes up. One of the major roles of this Government now has to be to improve police morale by doing the right thing and making the whole system fairer.
I come from the Black community, the community arguably most over and under policed simultaneously in this country. If we are to have a police force that can actually care for the people who have the most interaction with the police, we need to raise their morale. I commend this amendment to the House. It could be a very good step in the right direction to make these investigations fair and to raise police morale.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 393A in my name seeks to codify the Supreme Court decision in W(80) which relates to police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. The amendment relates to the test used to determine whether an officer misconducted themselves when he or she used force in self-defence. The amendment would place in statute the current legal position that an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others faced an immediate danger and, crucially, that where that belief is mistaken, the mistake must also be an objectively reasonable one.
I have retabled this amendment to encourage further consideration by the Government of their decision to depart from this test following Sir Adrian Fulford’s rapid review. Under their proposal, an officer would be able to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if the mistake was unreasonable. This is a significant shift, and one intended to be made by statutory instrument and without public consultation.
Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments made in Committee; however, I continue to believe firmly that the current civil law test is the right one in the context of misconduct proceedings. Of course, as many have rightly emphasised, it is essential that officers required to make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations are treated fairly, but fairness to officers must be balanced with the equally important obligations of learning, improvement and accountability of officers. The current test already achieves that balance. On the previous references to delays in the misconduct proceedings arena, I would say that these matters should be addressed by review, rather than removing the possibility of misconduct proceedings.
It is important to be clear that this amendment does not concern the criminal law. It does not touch on criminal prosecutions, as was suggested during Committee. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with respect, the reason that disciplinary proceedings await the outcome of criminal proceedings is that this is what the police ask. I chair the safeguarding service in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster and in many cases the police will say to us, “Please stop: do nothing”, and the policy is that we stop and do nothing until the police say we can do something. That is an important reservation.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
May I address that simple point? To be clear, in these cases, the IOPC is the investigating body. It is in full possession of the information it has gained—interviews, evidence from the scene, et cetera—so it is in a good position to query criminal charge or, at that stage, query misconduct charge, but it waits until the end of the whole process to instigate the misconduct charge that it could have instigated at the beginning, indicating the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it may be an employment issue. I find it confusing that it waits until the outcome of a criminal case, where it will have had no reasoned explanation for the jury’s decision—it would in a civil case, but not in a jury case, because no reason is offered. That is my point. It can be different in other professions, I understand, because they did not have the benefit of the investigators deciding what to put forward to the CPS.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
As police ombudsman, I was faced with exactly this problem, and I knew that our criminal proceedings had to be dealt with first.
To continue, what we are talking about here is the standard to be applied in misconduct proceedings. These proceedings exist in large part not just to ensure accountability but to enable forces to reflect and learn. They also enable the police to demonstrate that they take seriously situations involving the use of force, even when that force has been held not to be criminal. Despite that, the use of force must be necessary and proportionate.
This has broader implications. A disciplinary system that cannot scrutinise unreasonable mistakes risks undermining public confidence in policing. Retaining the civil law test supports public confidence by ensuring that unreasonable errors of judgment are open to scrutiny. Removing that scrutiny would weaken the learning function of misconduct proceedings, pose risks to public safety and give the impression that unreasonable policing errors lie beyond the review of accountability. That would have an impact, inevitably, by diminishing trust in policing.
For these reasons, I would be very grateful if the Minister could indicate what steps the Government are willing to take to address the serious concerns raised about moving to the criminal standard for self-defence in misconduct proceedings, particularly in the absence of wider public consultation or engagement with the communities most affected by police use of force. I am grateful to Justice, Inquest, the National Black Police Association and StopWatch for their help and support in this amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, these amendments all address the same question: how we protect the public from unlawful force while treating officers fairly when they carry out dangerous duties on our behalf. From these Benches, we start from two simple principles: there must be clear, consistent standards of accountability; and we must not drift into a two-tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else.
On Amendment 391, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we have particular concerns. It would, in effect, close off the possibility of independent scrutiny by the IOPC once a criminal court had acquitted an officer. That might sound attractive in the interests of family, but it risks confusing two distinct questions: whether conduct meets the high criminal threshold for conviction and whether it meets the professional standards we rightly expect from those who wield state power.
We are more sympathetic to Amendment 392 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. Misconduct cases that drift for years are bad for families seeking answers, for complainants whose evidence fades, for taxpayers funding prolonged suspensions and, not least, for officers left in limbo. The broad thrust of the amendment—that investigations need clear expectations and real grip—is one we support, while recognising that complex cases sometimes need longer and that rigid timelines can carry risks.
Amendment 393A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, seeks to put beyond doubt the test that should apply in police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. We support the aim of aligning those proceedings with the approach of the Supreme Court in W80 as a modest but important safeguard for bereaved families and communities who need to see that internal standards reflect the law as articulated by the highest court. If the Government are now moving in that direction through secondary legislation, so much the better, but Parliament is entitled to a clear, on-the-record explanation of the test, not simply an assurance that it will be sorted out behind the scenes.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, sits down, I wish to say that this is not a rigid timeline for anything other than a review to look at the timeline. I accept that a complicated case may need to run, but even in a complicated case, somebody should say, “Okay, this is complicated—we need more time”. In many instances, 12 months would be the point where somebody said, “We need to wrap up and move on”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for initiating his Amendment 391. I know that it is motivated by the desire to support police officers in the difficult role they perform. He and I share that motivation. I say to him, however, that the amendment as drafted would have the effect of curtailing existing powers that the Independent Office for Police Conduct can use to reinvestigate or reopen a case that it has previously closed. The amendment also seeks, more generally, to prevent the reopening of investigations into complaints against the police from the public, again if such complaints have resulted in criminal proceedings which have not resulted in a conviction.
I take very straightforwardly the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who made the point that I was going to make: we know of no recent cases where the Independent Office for Police Conduct has reopened a closed case. However, it is in the public interest that cases of alleged police misconduct can, if need be, be reopened in the light of substantive new evidence or evidence that the original investigation was flawed. As has been said by the three noble Members who have spoken, not all criminal proceedings against serving police officers involve line-of-duty incidents. Some may involve serious corruption or sexual violence by police perpetrators, and there may be compelling public interest arguments for reopening such cases.
The powers of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to reinvestigate a case are already limited by existing law, which requires the IOPC to have compelling reasons to reopen a case. This is a legal threshold and is already a high bar. Disciplinary proceedings involve different evidential tests, as was mentioned by those who contributed, and the lower threshold for finding misconduct or gross misconduct is the balance of probabilities. They also serve a different purpose from a criminal trial. We rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers, so a blanket presumption that no police officer who has been acquitted in the criminal courts should face disciplinary proceedings would, in the Government’s view, be quite wrong—I think that reflects the points of view put by the noble Viscount, the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness. That is a compelling argument which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will reflect on if he seeks to push the amendment, which I hope, in due course, he will not.
Amendment 392, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to improve the timeliness of police complaints and misconduct investigations by creating a new system of legal adjudicators with the power to overrule both chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct by closing down investigations where they determine that there is no good or sufficient reason for any delay. As we have previously debated, unnecessary delays in these investigations are not in anyone’s best interests. I know the impact they will have on public confidence and on the welfare of the police officers involved. However, while it is right to strive for improvements in timeliness, this amendment risks adding another layer of bureaucracy, thereby adding cost and delay and not removing it.
The Government are committed to supporting chief constables to remove those who are not fit for purpose, but the amendment has the potential not only to overrule the responsibilities of chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but to create some perverse outcomes. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper already confirms our commitment to an independent, end-to-end review of the police conduct system, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would support. It will include looking at timeliness and how this can be improved. Again, further process will be brought back following the police White Paper proposals.
Amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would require that, where a police officer uses force based on an honestly held but mistaken belief, that belief can justify the use of force only if the mistake was objectively reasonable. In effect, as she knows, it seeks to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of police officer W80, which found that the civil standard applied to this test. As the House will know, police officers carry out important and demanding roles. The Government are determined to ensure that both the public and the police are able to feel confident in the police accountability system. That is why we commissioned a review—again, the noble Baroness referred to this—from Timothy Godwin, a former senior police officer, and Sir Adrian Fulford. They carried out a rapid, independent review into police accountability.
The findings of that review were published in October 2025—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to this—and it recommended that the Government change the legal test for the use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test. The Government, again, have accepted this recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes via secondary legislation. Our intention is that these changes will come into force later this year, in the spring of 2026.
While I understand the noble Baroness’s concept, I cannot support it, because we have put in place the independent commissioners to examine the matter thoroughly and they heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their recommendation was clear: the current approach has created confusion, inconsistency and, I accept, a very bad effect on police morale, particularly among firearms officers. I hope the changes we are making will bring clarity to the system. I reassure the House that it will still be the case that any force used must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, after her comments—it may not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Finally in this group, I will speak briefly to government Amendments 395 and 397. These are technical amendments to ensure that specialist police force barred and advisory lists are consistently applied across police forces. The provisions in Clauses 173 to 181 and Schedule 21 are part of a broader effort to raise standards and conduct within law enforcement. They also include the closure of a legislative loophole. These technical amendments have been tabled to ensure that we have alignment in the treatment of civilian employees within the police service.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I hope not just that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but that on reflection he is able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and therefore not push his amendment to a vote. But, as ever, that is entirely a matter for him.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his valid points and for injecting his valuable experience into this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that it is wrong to draw a comparison between policing and the medical profession. Policing is uniquely different.
This has been a thoughtful discussion about how we maintain robust police accountability while ensuring fairness to the officers who serve the public. The case of Martyn Blake has brought this issue into the public consciousness. Whatever view one takes of the circumstances of that tragic incident, the fact remains that the case was heard in open court before a jury and the officer was acquitted, yet the prospect of further investigation has remained. For many officers watching that case unfold, the concern is not about accountability; it is about whether there is ever a point at which a matter can truly be regarded as concluded.
As my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington pointed out, there is much current discussion about police morale and those young-in-service officers leaving the police service. The proposal in my amendment is fair to officers. It is clear for the system and maintains the integrity of the oversight framework. It is highly unfortunate and extremely disappointing that the Minister has not been able to at least meet me half way and make the commitment that I sought. On that basis, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/2) are amended as follows.(2) After Regulation 13 (timeliness of investigations), insert—“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.”(3) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/4) are amended as follows.(4) After Regulation 19 (timeliness of investigation), insert—“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation. (3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 12-month limit, unless extraordinary circumstances reviewed by a legally qualified person dictate otherwise, which would encourage forces and external bodies to complete misconduct and gross misconduct processes quicker, allowing officers to resume duties and limiting the negative impact on their health and wellbeing.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Before we voted, he said to me that he hoped I was satisfied. I will say that I am partially satisfied with his answer, and that is good enough; I will not test the opinion of the House. I would like to say, however, that he talked about the work that the Government are doing to look at how we can shorten these investigations; he mentioned that the Government were going to give this more consideration. I implore him to look at how we shorten these investigations. They are unnecessarily wrong and they are causing huge damage on both sides of the equation. I would like to support the Government in that work, and if I can be of any help, I hope they will let me know. However, I will not test the will of the House.