Lords Chamber

Wednesday 17th December 2025

(began 1 month, 4 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Closing the employment gap for blind and sight-impaired people Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-

leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My
15:07
15:08
15:08
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question and I absolutely for that question and I absolutely agree with him. It's not political, and I know that his approach to this is not. And I'm grateful for the way that he approaches these issues. There are different views on the statistics on that, and we can have a conversation elsewhere, which I'll not depends on how how the definitions are made, I think. But but either which way? The question the fact is that disability employment gap is far too big and it needs tackling.

And certainly the pandemic as he as he will know only too well. Things got worse and they haven't really recovered back to where they ought to be since. So this government has made a real commitment to engaging, specifically investing significant additional sums of money in supporting people with a range of disabilities and health conditions, including blind and visually impaired people. Back to work, lots more tailored support, investment in supported in progress supported employment programmes, making sure that there are specialist disability employment advisers and coaches who understand how they can help people, but also working with employers.

And I can talk more about that if it's helpful. But in terms of a task force, I'm not in a position to announce a task force today, but the noble Lord may be interested to know that we have announced we're going to have an independent disability advisory panel. The membership will be announced shortly, but the government is taking very seriously the need to listen to voices of disabled people, including blind and visually impaired people, as well as talking to the organisations that support him.

And I would really welcome having further conversations with him about how we can get this right,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the the Minister. Acknowledges that acknowledges.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Whether the £3 billion investment in additional places for children with special educational needs will involve the construction of new settings, or adaptations of existing educational establishments Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-

Fourth oral question Lord Addington. Order Paper.
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Well, can I first of all say that I'm. I'm very pleased that the that I'm. I'm very pleased that the noble Lord is one of the teachers. The over 2000 teachers that we've been able to retain in the classroom over and above, despite his busyness in this house as well. I'm very glad that the pupils of Mossbourne get the benefit of his teaching as well. Look, the previous opposition Secretary of State for education described the Special educational needs system as a lose, lose, lose system.

I agree with her about that. That's why this government is taking by the horns the requirement to reform the system. It's why my hon. Friend George Gould, the Minister, is at this very moment engaging in widespread conversation with parents, with teachers, with children themselves about how we can reform the system so that it identifies children earlier. It provides the support that they need where necessary. It provides that really specialist support for those with complex needs, but it helps parents and children to feel more confident that their needs are being met.

And we will have more to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say about that in the white paper that we will publish next year. My Lords. That concludes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. That concludes. Oral questions for today. My Lords, those members who wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, those members who wish to leave, may they do so Has Has to Has to be Has to be in Has to be in committee Has to be in committee on Has to be in committee on the unauthorised entry to football matches. Bill Lord Brennan, of canton. My Lords, I understand that
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Lord David? >> I'm grateful to the noble Lord. When I said on November 27th, it will be soon. I think December the 18th is soon and it will be 18th is soon and it will be published tomorrow. And I know that noble Lords and members of this House have been pressing me to publish the statement as soon as possible. It will be delivered in the House of Commons tomorrow, and I stand ready to deliver the statement in this House, if the opposition so wishes at the earliest opportunity, which I expect now will be in the New Year.

The noble Lord asks whether there will be cuts in services, and also why the statutory has been inverted, commas delayed. Let me remind the noble Lord this is a strategy with an ambition to cut and halve the violence against women and girls over a ten year period. That is a significant, complex, deliverable commitment. And in order to achieve that commitment, we have consulted through 12 meetings with across the sector a range of individuals across government and the police organisations and women's organisations involved in domestic violence.

So the strategy will be published tomorrow. I hope it will be welcome. It will be full. It will have a series of measurable metrics to achieve that halving of violence against women and girls. But it is complex. But I hope the noble Lord will invite me to deliver a statement in the new year, and I will happily do so in more detail. He asks about cuts in funding. We will be announcing a package of funding measures tomorrow as part of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.

But let me say to him that to date, the government has announced in May of this year £19.9 million investment in violence against women and girls. We have put in place a £53 million investment in July of this year to fund the four year roll out of the drive project, the housing and local government departments put £19 million in this year to look at domestic abuse safe accommodation. Local authorities will receive 500 million over the next three years to support safe accommodation, and the Ministry of Justice have committed half £1 billion to invest in vital support services to help domestic abuse victims navigate the process of justice.

And that's so far. Tomorrow, the strategy will set out in more detail funding options, deliverables and the strategy to deliver that half cutting over the next ten years and I hope the noble Lord will welcome it when he comes.
15:54
15:55
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
It's absolutely right. And the noble Lady will know that my colleagues in the Ministry of colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who are responsible for the prosecution element of that, are going to be reviewing and again in the strategy tomorrow, which she will see, that there is a real commitment to up the number of prosecutions and to ensure that the criminal justice outcomes are made on this issue. It's also important that we give confidence to victims of rape, both male and female, to come forward to report their rapes in the first place and to be taken seriously by the authorities.

And that, again, is one of the aspects of the strategy that will, I hope, be able to be further developed when that comes forward in due course. As I've said, the strategy, the House has both opposition from bench spokespeople have said delayed. There hasn't been a violence against women and girls strategy. Currently, there is not a violence against women and girls in this ten year period, so a delay of some, what, 15 months since the manifesto commitment was given at the general election to put in place a strategy to halve women and girls violence over ten years.

I think that that's a reasonable timescale to have produced a strategy. We've wanted to get it right and I believe with the document produced tomorrow which members can get from vote offices on both houses tomorrow will be available and I hope that they will look at it over Christmas and come back and challenge me on the contents in the New year. Lord.
15:56
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
None Portrait Amdt. 34C Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-

>> I rise to speak to amendment 346C. Dangerous. Careless. Or 346C. Dangerous. Careless. Or inconsiderate? Syphon review, and inconsiderate? Syphon review, and in doing so, I welcome the other amendments in this group in the amendments in this group in the names of my little friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Mitchell of Dulwich. 346C is a modest and reasonable amendment which does exactly what it says on the tin. It would require the Home Secretary to institute a review, and I quote, assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences.

In section 106, the review, which must be published within a year of that section coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law which the review determines may be necessary, and the rationale for this amendment is similarly simple. It seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies which contract for services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct contact of those cyclists on the roads. Now, noble Lords have not been surprised to hear that I approached this issue from the perspective of a civil, settled person whose condition makes me extremely vulnerable to the impact, and I use the term advisedly.

The actual physical impact of being hit by an individual riding one of these e-bikes in, to use the legislative terminology, a dangerous terrace or inconsiderate way. To put it bluntly, the impact would be catastrophic. I would not expect to survive. So I completely agree with my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who said on day six of committee that you take your life in your hands when you cross some roads in central London. I do quite literally every day on my way to and from your Lordships' House.

Now, I entirely appreciate that whether I live or die is neither here nor there. In the grand scheme of things, it would be a shame if my Mattel's but the Earth would continue to turn. I know that equally and major, I'm just one person and I think of all those people with visual impairments, for example, who literally risked life and limb just stepping outside their front door. So you should consider the impact on them as well, not just in terms of their independence, their mental health and wellbeing, all of which will, of course, bring associated costs for the NHS and social care services, but also their employment prospects for why would anyone want to risk going to work, given they could end up in hospital before they even got to the office as a result of being hit by a cyclist on a bike while they are walking along the pavements, or trying to board a bus from one of those so-called floating bus stops, I cite this group as just one example, and of course there are people with mobility impairments like mine, or simply older people whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were.

To highlight how the dangers presented by dangerous Tellus or considering cycrin online bikes, particularly by courier delivery cyclists are having a far greater impact on our society than we perhaps realise. My Lords, I would go so far as to say that the effect has been to airbrush out of the bigger social picture. Whole swathes of society. So I'm not suggesting that an assessment of impact should be disability exclusive. I would argue that such an impact alone merits a rebuke.

And I said to the Liberal Prime Minister, I'm not laying the blame at the door of government per se. The member's explanatory statement accompanying the amendment refers to the companies which contract the services of delivery cyclists bearing, and I quote, some responsibility for the contact surface. The point being that the responsibility is shared, but none of us either. In Parliament, all the government can deny that we also share responsibility for addressing the problem, in our case, by providing the most effective legislative framework to facilitate the change.

We all want to see safer streets, and I'm reminded of what the Lord Livermore Lord Rook Russell of Liverpool, said in day six of committee about us having made a huge strategic mistake in terms of not factoring in the need for safety from the outset. When e-bikes were introduced. And I agree with him. Sadly, some people, especially in the Department of Transport, appear not to they, and I dare say there are non-disabled and a bit slow on the uptake, so we need to make allowances.

I still do not seem to have woken up to the fact that this experiment has gone badly wrong. My Lords, that needs to be the starting point of the review. There must be a recognition, a fact which I sense the Minister implicitly acknowledges that there is a significant and growing problem which will simply be dismissed by officialdom's obtuse obfuscation of while we are where we are, because if we don't recognise that where we are is bad, then we cannot move on line.

The e-bike hiring companies and companies such as Justeat deserve to be in the dock, not in the saddle. When it comes to this review. Yes, there will be part of the solution, but right now they're doing very nicely. Thank you very much for being a big part of the problem. So they turn up, be allowed to set or influence the review's terms of reference, or sit on the review panel. That should be done by those most affected by dangerous terrorists or inconsiderate cycling, not by those whose irresponsible indifference means they are profiting from putting people's lives at risk.

My Lords, in conclusion, I believe the case for a review is compelling. As my little friend Baroness Stowell said on day six of committee courier delivery service, e-bike users are the worst perpetrators. It is time we reviewed the situation. I beg to move.
16:12
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. 106. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I rise to. >> Speak to my amendment 460 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to my amendment 460 to support a targeted, enforceable measure that holds delivery platforms to account for their platforms to account for their operational model and oversight failures contribute to dangerous cycling on our streets. This is not about blame for individual riders alone. It's about closing our regulatory gap so that companies who profit from rapid, app driven deliveries also carry responsibility for foreseeable harms linked to their business models and practices. Now, if noble Lords want a bit more excitement in their lives than the excitement of participating in this debate, then then invite them to accompany tonight when we rise to walk along Millbank, Horseferry Road, Marsham Street, past the Home Office.

The excitement will come from them dodging out of the way of dozens of Deliveroo couriers belting along the pavements, delivering to the thousands of flats in this area. Even more excitement may come when I manage to confront one of these riders and we have an exchange of views, but not usually a meeting of minds. When I do manage to stop them and I stop them because when I see them belting along the pavement, I drive straight for them and my chair is heavier than theirs.

So they're the ones who are forced to dodge out of the way. But when I do manage to, to, to, to to speak to them and I stop on those massive fat tire illegal bikes, I can say with all honesty that every single one I've seen is a recent arrival to this country. Half do not speak English and do not know the law on riding bikes on the pavement. The other half do know the law, and they tell me to go away sexually, and that they will do what they like and who will stop them.

Now, if I'd said that a month ago, I might have been accused of racist comments. But on the 5th of December this year, the Home Office issued a press release that that targeted action they and the police had arrested 171 food delivery couriers for criminal activity, and six of them were illegal migrants facing deportation, the Home Office press release said. It comes as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been targeting people working unlawfully in the gig economy. Border Security Minister Alex Norris also said also met representatives from food delivery firms to encourage them to do more to tackle the abuse.

The issue, such as using facial recognition checks to prevent riders sharing their identities with people who do not have permission to take up work in the UK, Norris said November's action ought to send a clear message. If you're working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed, he added. We're tightening the law to clamp down on illegal working in the delivery sector to root out this criminality from our communities, unquote. So said the Home Office Minister. Good on you, Minister, and good on the Home Office, because you've you provide proof of what I've encountered every night for the last two years on the streets of Westminster, within hundreds of yards of this building.

But good luck to you in trying to send them back to Eritrea or Somalia or whatever, because there's bound to be some immigration judge who will block you and cite bogus human rights reasons why they cannot be deported. But that's your problem, and not for today. However, my Lords, my amendment supplements what Minister Norris was doing. He exhorted the food delivery companies to do more to tackle the issue. My new clause gives a power, the police, the power to financially penalise the food delivery companies, since money is the only thing which will make them change.

Why must they change? Independent research shows that gig economy delivery riders face higher collision risk and are under greater time, pressure and incentives to ride unsafely than riders directly employed by restaurants. A major study by University College London found gig riders were more likely to be reported for speeding, running, running red lights, distracted from their app notifications and be involved in collisions resulting in vehicle damage or injury. And the European Transport Safety Council and other road safety bodies have echoed these findings and warned that payment structures and app design can create foreseeable incentives for risky riding.

Transport authorities and local government bodies have repeatedly raised alarms about illegally modified e-bikes, unsafe batteries and the fire and collision risks they pose. Transport for London and London boroughs have called for stronger regulation of conversion kits and uncertified lithium ion batteries, and have urged national action to improve product safety and data collection on e-bike incidents. National reporting and safety reviews have similarly warned that modified e-bikes used by couriers can reach speeds far beyond legal limits and present both collision and fire hazards.

But, my Lords, it's not just modified e-bikes. The ones I see every night are these massive fat tire bikes, which are officially for hill climbing and off road use, but are the main Deliveroo Just eats and Uber eat bikes I meet every day. My Lord, I just did a Google search to buy one of these bikes. I came hundreds and hundreds of pages and let me just quote two examples the hideous, hideous not hideous. Well, it's the same thing, really.

B6 electric bike 48V, 15.6 amp battery, 1200 watt motor, 20 inch diameter and four inch fat. Tires weight 50.7kg. Recommended top speed 25 miles an hour but en bloc to 50km/h. The second one, the Tesla X9 all wheel drive, 4000 watt dual motor electric mountain bike, 48 volt, 30 amp Samsung battery weight 48kg 64km/h and the ASBO is a suitable for off road and commuting. My Lords talk about giving up two fingers to the law. Commuting a 48 kilogram bike capable of being sick of 64km/h, advertised as suitable for commuting.

Of course, the sellers will say that the commuting they envisaged was was probably a sheep farmer going from his house to check on the sheep up on the mountain. And that's what the commuting was. My proposed clause is proportionate and necessary and it's narrowly focussed. It empowers the police to issue fines to delivery companies, where a rider delivering on their behalf is convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling. Now, of course, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Justeat will say they're they're not the employer.

I'll have no control over what bikes these private individuals use. But my Lords, that won't wash. And they have vicarious liability for the so-called independent riders they use to deliver their food. They can and should vet the drivers and regularly check that they're riding road legal bikes. Of course, they don't do so at the moment because there's no financial penalty if they don't and they will not listen. I'm afraid to. Nice. Mr. Maurice Norris from the Home Office. My new clause is not a punitive measure for its own sake.

It's a lever to change corporate behaviour where evidence shows platform design, pay by drop models, weak onboarding and poor vehicle checks create foreseeable risks that companies can and should mitigate. The combination of legal precedent on vicarious liability and the empirical and enforcement evidence I have cited shows that companies can be held accountable when their systems materially contribute to harm. So could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, where he's got to with his consultation on police powers, on disposing of seized vehicles which have been used? Antisocially.

In his written reply to me of 19th September, he said that the consultation closed on 8th July and conclusions will be published shortly. Well, you can't get more antisocial than using larger legal bikes on our roads and pavements and injuring pedestrians. And and I've given the Minister some ideas to work up here in my new amendment. Now, before I conclude, my Lords, could I just give a bit of extraneous advice to noble Lords on all sides? And that is never, never to order food supply by these food aggregators, since there are 40% chance you're going to be ripped off.

I was on the Food Standards Agency until recently, and the public and noble Lords may think they're getting food cooked in the nice named restaurant with a good rating for taste, quality and hygiene. But up to 40% of that food these days is now cooked in virtual kitchens and multi cooked warehouse warehouses. Some grubby, cheap joints under the arches with the same cooks are mass producing kebabs, pizzas, tikka masala, curries, burgers, what have you. However, my Lords, that's just helpful advice for so so you can avoid food poisoning.

But that's for another day. Let me conclude my my Lords, by saying this. I know the noble Lord. The Minister is a decent and caring. Well, I presume Lord Katz is also the noble Lord. Lord Katz is also a decent and caring man, and getting back to the amendment, I say that that I'm sorry that I believe both Ministers have to follow a Department of Transport like that. You can't that these probably don't both believe in. But that's collective responsibility for you.

The Ministers are not blind. They know the carnage out there in the streets. They know the flagrant abuse of our laws, which cannot be enforced no matter how many police we have. If there's no way to identify the thousands of illegal bikes being sold and used, and no way to identify the riders as a noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe said last week, then there's nothing they can do. The law breaking and dangerous to our pedestrians are not the fault of the Home Office, but the fanatics and the Department of Transport who are obsessed with permitting a cycling free for all.

One day, my Lords, they will have blood on their hands when that happens. Happens. I hope they are never able to sleep easily at night. So I urge the House to support this amendment and all other amendments on this bill in previous groups, future groups which are seeking to make our streets safer for pedestrians and which the Department of Transport simply doesn't give a about.
16:22
Lord McColl of Dulwich Portrait Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> My amendment 481. Seeks to address the specific. Part that address the specific. Part that delivery services play in the broader criminal activity. Delivery broader criminal activity. Delivery riders make regular deliveries to residential accommodation, which often houses vulnerable people, but the identity of these riders is unknown because they they wear masks and helmets and despite anonymity of these riders, they can wander around inside these residential accommodation with impunity, especially because the outside door of these flats is often controlled remotely.

And some of the delivery elevators actually open into private apartments. And as has been mentioned already, a vulnerable 80 year old lady opened the door of her flat from the lift and was confronted by one of these helmeted, masked foreigners. And when she tried to shut the door, he prevented her from shutting the door by putting his foot to his foot across the threshold into her apartment. You can imagine how frightened that she was.

Besides the fear that these riders can stoke, they can also commit crimes within the building. And some of them actually put graffiti all over the place. So there's a real problem here. Now, the other thing that we have to bear in mind that these people are these often involve human trafficking, and they can be in the county, in the country illegally. As has been mentioned this month, as has been mentioned already, 171 illegal delivery riders have been arrested.

So there's a real problem. This amendment of mine is the first step in addressing all of this criminal behaviour. It enables an accurate diagnosis of the problem, the impact of which is particularly felt by, by by the most vulnerable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our society. I beg to move. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to support all three amendments, but particularly the one put forward by Lord Shinkwin it. one put forward by Lord Shinkwin it. I've made amendments which are about general concerns about cyclists putting pedestrians at cyclists putting pedestrians at risk. The government didn't accept those, but I think what's different about these amendments is, first of
16:25
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
about these amendments is, first of all, it's not beyond coincidence that the three people who propose those amendments, these amendments have got physical challenges they overcome every day. And although all of us as pedestrians face challenges with cyclists, if you can't get out of the way, you can't see them coming and you're going to sustain more grievous injuries. Should you be hit, then that group in society is even more vulnerable than everyone. So I think the fact that they've made this case, we should listen carefully.

I have to say that generally this government and even the Lib Dems, I think, are just a little bit complacent about responding to the general point about cyclists being held to account. There's almost a patting on the head. There's not that many people dying. There's not that many people getting injured compared to being hit by cars. Well, there were 25 killed by cyclists over the last ten years, and it mattered to those families. And I think it should matter to the government to take some action.

Lord Shinkwin amendment merely asks for a review to gather evidence, particularly in the more narrow area, rather than just general cycling. But in terms of commercial operations who employ cyclists. Now, the link between the cyclist and the employer has got more, even more vicarious than it has been in the past, because many of them are on zero hour contracts. They provide the cycles themselves. I don't think they always visit the operating centres of their employer. So the employer says, well, we didn't buy the bikes, we don't see the bikes.

What's it got to do with us about what they do when they're working for us? But I've been out, as I mentioned a few days ago, with the City of London police, and these people are clearly operating on behalf of the commercial company. There is a vicarious liability for the employer, I would argue, but there's no way that that link is being established at the moment. One thing that the commercial, if the employers were or the companies were able to do, would be to look at the data on the bikes, they could establish how often they were being operated.

And sometimes this is beyond normal employment practice. They could establish which streets they went on because many of them are going the wrong way down certain streets. And it'd be fairly clear if they were to look at the data. But I think at the very least, what this review might want to consider is that an employer could start to do more positive things than just employ sanctions. They can start to educate their cyclists, they could start to reward them for better behaviour.

Many employers now have HGV drivers. Bus drivers have schemes which are advertised on the rear of the vehicles. If you don't like the way our driver is driving, please let us know. Well, they could do that for cyclists and you might say, well there's no registration plate. Well I argue for registration plate, but if you don't like that idea, they could have highlighters with details on the back, advertising which company they were employed by and who you might report it to if you weren't happy with the driving of that cycle.

So you're starting to bear down on some of the accountability I think would gradually improve road safety. I think that I'm sure that the government aren't lying to the problem. I think what's happening at the moment is that people are worried about the amount of bureaucracy that would be needed to be put in place and are frightened of having to establish that bureaucracy. And I understand that as an administrative burden. But I do think it's important to start to make incremental steps, to start to have some impact in this really important area.

And my only final point, which I would like to make, is that the very least this review could do is to establish some data on which we could all debate. This is insufficient that anecdotes would drive policy, but I think the anecdotes are so frequent and so obvious that in fact there is underpinning data, but it's not being collected at the moment. A review like this would start to collect data, inform policy and make sure that any changes that might be proposed were reasonable ones that would be likely to have some effect.

And just finally, just to say that at the moment, I think that the employers are claiming wilful ignorance, basically as a defence, we don't know. It's nothing to do with us whatever they do while they're out cycling. But it does matter and it has something to do with them. If they're operating a business in which it's putting people at risk, they might actually be concerned about their own brand, but it appears they're not. But of course, they don't carry the brand apart from Deliveroo on the bike.

Well, perhaps they could do more by putting some more identifying features on the back. And my my very final point is just that at the moment, even if you don't accept the three arguments and the three amounts being put and some of the amendments I've put, I've seen no positive response by the government to any of the arguments put to them. They just say, we don't want to do it. Well, it's not a good argument and I don't think it's sufficient.

And I think there is some need for some constructive response to, I think, some reasonable challenges and the vulnerable in society, I think, feel it most. But most of us see it every day. It's about time somebody took it seriously, and I don't think the government is.
16:31
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
A lot. >> A lot. >> Of sympathy for amendment. >> 346 and 481. And I start slightly from the premise of not seeking further reviews. But I am a bicyclist. I bicycle very regularly bicyclist. I bicycle very regularly in London. I did this very morning from King's Cross on an electric bike to here, and that is my new usual means of transport when I come from Lincolnshire. And I think, in fact, that there are two quite distinct problems which need to be addressed.

One is the simple behaviour of bicyclists on the road. There are already many regulations that apply not to ride on pavements, to have batteries of of an appropriate kind, to comply with traffic signs and all of that. And one of the things that one does see all the time is an extraordinary denial of the law by riders. And so that is a matter of enforcement. And I think it's very difficult to enforce because the police, frankly, have got better things to do with their time.

I have some sympathy with that view. So that is one discreet problem. A much more worrying problem is the one which has been alluded to actually both by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and Lord Altrincham about the relationship between the delivery companies and the delivery riders, because that relationship is worth looking into very carefully. It is right to inquire what is the nature of the employment? Where are the bicycles provided? By whom are the bicycles provided? What steps are taken to ensure that the riders comply with the law? Where does the the liability to pay compensation arise if they are regular employees? I'm referring to the writers.

Then the ordinary principles of vicarious liability arise. But if there are sort of independent contractors, presumably the delivery companies are not liable to pay compensation. Now, these are the sort of questions that I think could sensibly be addressed, either by the Department of Transport or by the Home Office. I'm not sure I want to see a review of a formal kind. It takes a very long time. But I do think that there are issues seriously to be addressed about the relationship between the riders and delivery companies, but I'm afraid with regard to the amendment 416K moved by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, whilst I again I have sympathy with the point that he's seeking to make, I cannot support what he is proposing for two reasons.

The first reason is really a simply technical one. If you look at his amendment, the liabilities are ultimately on the company. Arise out of the bad, dangerous driving of the rider. Now on any ordinary view, the company itself is not directly responsible for the criminal act of the rider. And so we will be taking a vicarious liability rather too far, in my opinion. And secondly, and quite differently. And I say this with some diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe.

There are no circumstances in which I would give the police the power to levy an unlimited fine. I really would not do that under any circumstances. We've had far too many anxieties about the police Lord Hogan-Howe, for on occasion himself has identified some, and in the case of civil liberties, for the sake of preserving civil liberties, there is no way this House should do that.
16:35
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to support this group of amendments, which this group of amendments, which really very neatly follow on from the discussions that we had on the discussions that we had on Monday. And I would say there was a great deal of consensus around the house, around the degree to which there is a problem, particularly with delivery riders on illegal e-bikes and delivery riders riding e-bikes illegally. Just on my way back from their Lordships House your Lordships' House on Monday, I saw a delivery rider riding the wrong way down German Street, about half a mile from here, doing about 20 miles an hour.

It's a one way street, directly down the other, down the other way. That's one anecdote, but on my way, walking here this afternoon, I saw a number of a number of similar offences. And my Lords, the a number of different approaches were taken to this problem from noble Lord. Lord Hogan-Howe was quite major initiative that he would like to see on registration of all cycles. And I think there was some feeling that that would be difficult, perhaps a bit of a sledgehammer to crack.

Quite a large nut here. But really the issue that we do have is that these delivery riders are flying under the flag. They are de facto commissioned by of their contractors by large companies and their their agents, for want of a better term, are acting illegally. They're using illegal vehicles and they are riding them illegally the whole time. And it is removing the incentive from those who seek to ride legal, legal vehicles. Same Lords, in my view. My noble friends are quite right to put the emphasis on those who can do something about this.

And they are the large companies that are commissioning these individuals to utilise these vehicles. They really have to take responsibility for the action of their agents. Now, my noble friend Lord Hailsham might well have said that this goes beyond the law. As it stands at the moment, we are Parliament Lords. We are here to change the law where we think that that a change in the law is going to make a specific difference. So I really only have one point, and that is to urge the noble Lords, the Ministers on on the government front bench who've been very, very diligent in all throughout this bill and no doubt will be to come not to look too closely at their folders.

I haven't had a peek, but I dare say it will be along the lines of yes, isn't it awful? There is a real problem, but it's all very difficult to do something about it. This is the opportunity to do something about it, and I believe that the House will listen very carefully to the Minister's response, because we can all see illegal activity flouting the law. The law is being brought into disrepute. There is almost no enforcement of this whatsoever. But yet the government, the former the Minister said, well, it's it's it's very difficult, but I'm not sure that any of the solutions which have been proposed will will make any sort of difference.

So if the noble Lord, if the government doesn't like the amendments that my noble friends have proposed, well, fair enough, but let's hear their initiatives. And I, I do feel if if we don't get a satisfactory response, then the House really shouldn't let this opportunity pass. When we have a bill with direct. Clauses that deal with the issue of illegal cycling and sanctions, we need to do something about it. This is our moment and we look forward to a substantive response from Her Majesty's Government.
16:39
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Shinkwin, the noble Lord Blencathra, and the noble Lord McCall, for for moving so eloquently these amendments. And I take I think they take the debate one step further than the general debate, if you like, that we had about dangerous and careless cycling, particularly on pavements, which I think the main perpetrators are in fact delivery drivers, as a number of us recorded in that debate. But what I think is particularly helpful about each of these three amendments is it actually refers to the duties and responsibilities of the Home Office and the noble Lord Hogan-Howe has said on a number of occasions, and we applaud the work of the City of London in pulling these perpetrators generally off the street where they have been found, whether they're cyclists, cyclists or e-scooter riders, where they've found to to have broken the law.

But I think what is particularly appealing in Lord, my noble friend Lord Mccaul's amendment is he refers particularly to the criminal activity. And we know that e-scooters are heavily used in the theft of of goods, the theft of telephones, and also the supply of illegal drugs. And I have myself almost photographed. An e-bike that was mounting the pavement not far from here, strutton ground, and I thought I would place it on Facebook, and I'm rather pleased I didn't, because he then went on to actually do a drug drop on Strutton ground, and there are a number of schoolchildren there and a number of families there, and I think Lord Shinkwin my noble friend.

Lord Shinkwin amendment also highlights how it's particularly, if I may say, the disabled, the less able, the elderly, but also young people with families and those using wheelchairs generally who are put at great risk. And that has been highlighted by this group of amendments. So I'd like to put two questions, if I may, to the noble Lord Lord Katz, when he sums up here, what actions are the Home Office taking in this regard outside the City of London and outside one of.

Operations that we've heard of? Well, I think the figure of 70 was raised with 70 bicycles were taken off the street in one day. My husband is convinced that every time one of these operations take place, the word goes round the delivery drivers and they tell each other not to go out that day because if they do, the enforcement are out and therefore they will invade that enforcement. So what are they going to do to improve enforcement from the Home Office? Because I think this we've moved one step further from the debate on Monday.

This is a debate not just about transport and cycling, but about illegal and criminal activity by people happening to use e-bikes, bikes, pedal bikes and e-scooters for illegal and criminal activities. And the second question I'd like to ask the Lord Lord Katz is where a bike has been seized. We've heard from my noble friend Lord Blencathra the question what is going to happen to them? But can I ask the wider question, what is the power to seize and confiscate pedal bikes, ebikes and e-scooters? And do we have the power as private citizens to conduct a private arrest? Where we seeing an illegal activity taking place, or are we putting ourselves at undue risk in that regard? But I hope that we'll get a full response to these, and perhaps the government might come forward with their own amendments, because where this is leading to criminal activities, we have established, it is it is nonsensical to let it continue to the.

Extent that it currently is. So I look forward to listening to the Lord's reply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this group from Lord Shinkwin. Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl are trying to probe the issue of who is responsible for dangerous cycling by cyclists working for delivery companies, and whilst I'm supportive of their aims, I don't associate myself with all of the associate myself with all of the points they've raised and indeed the language that they have used. But this is a real issue and one
16:43
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
But this is a real issue and one that many of us have looked at over recent years as we've seen this rise of delivery companies, whether it's for your shopping takeaways or virtually what you want from the click on your device. But this also doesn't just cover pedal cyclists. It equally applies to those who provide deliveries on motorcycles and e-scooters. In the past, I have worked on this at London City Hall to see if we could work with those, for example, food delivery companies that we've heard so much about today, and to work with them and see whether we could provide additional training for their cyclists and motorcyclists, perhaps looking at some sort of charter mark to show that they had higher standards to deliver goods around the city, ensuring that we have professional riders providing this service on our streets.

But the challenge is that most riders and scooters, as has been raised, are not employees of these companies and therefore their legal advice is they don't want to go anywhere near that because then they may be responsible for their cyclists or motorcyclists behaviour. In fact, what you may find is some of these riders will be working at the same time for a number of these companies. So I think it becomes even more complex to work out who is responsible and to identify which company would be responsible.

But I do think these amendments raise an important safety point, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in this area and any ways forward to try to address this growing concern.
16:45
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the >> My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, in what noble friend Lord Shinkwin, in what I might say was rather a poignant way. These amendments prohibit the liability of courier companies specifically for the actions of their employees who use cycling as their method of transportation. And my noble friend Lord Shinkwin spoke of the threat posed by these cyclists on a disabled person.

For example, an amendment 346 C tabled by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin asked for a review looking at how the law could be changed to ensure bicycle courier companies are held accountable for their riders. Noble Lords will be aware of the explosive growth of bicycle delivery and courier services. Many of those courier companies are not held responsible for the dangerous manner in which their riders behave. My Lords, many of the most dangerous incidents are caused by delivery riders under pressure to meet tight deadlines and often operating heavy, fast e-bikes, holding companies responsible, or at least requiring a public review of their practices, would help deter irresponsible riding and shift the burden back onto the companies, which profit from high speed delivery models.

A review of this kind would also allow us to examine the employment models used by these companies, the incentives placed on riders, and the adequacy of training, supervision and enforcement mechanisms. It would provide a valuable evidence base for any future legislative change, rather than relying on piecemeal responses to individual incidents. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for amendment 416K and the passion with which he spoke in support of it. This amendment would give the police power to issue fines of an unlimited amount to delivery companies for dangerous cycling offences under sections 27, a death by dangerous driving 27 b causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and 38 b causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling, and 28 c causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling.

Inconsiderate cycling on or off the road. Traffic of the Road Traffic Act 1998. My Lords, we support the intention behind this amendment. Its aim is to hold companies that hire large numbers of delivery drivers to account for the actions of their hired staff. This is an important principle and touches on the important points of what framework and policies companies have in place to ensure that their own staff are abiding by the laws of the road. While questions would clearly need to be addressed around proportionality, enforcement and evidential thresholds, the amendment raises legitimate concerns about the status quo, and I hope the amendment is made.

The government reflect on whether current penalties fall too heavily on individual riders, while the companies that benefit financially from the delivery model escaped meaningful consequence. I do look forward to the minister's response. Finally, I turn to amendment 48 one tabled by my friend Lord McCaul of Dulwich. This amendment proposes a review into bicycle and motorcycle delivery services and their potential links to criminal activity. We are broadly supportive of the principle behind this amendment. It seeks to shine a light on the range of issues that are often raised by residents and local authorities, including concerns about organised crime, exploitation, immigration compliance and the impact of delivery riders on community safety.

So taken together, these amendments raise serious and timely questions about accountability, public safety and the responsibility of large delivery platforms. And the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe is absolutely right when he says that the government must acknowledge the argument and come up with answers, and also I the words of my noble friend Viscount Goschen, where he he summed it up perfectly. I thought, this is an opportunity to do something positive about a very real problem, and to do it now in this bill.

And I hope the government will engage constructively with the issues raised and set out how they intend to ensure that the rapid growth of this sector does not come at the confidence.
16:49
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, these amendments, in >> My Lords, these amendments, in their different ways, seek to extend liability for the unlawful actions of cyclists onto their actions of cyclists onto their employers or contractors. Amendment 346C moved by the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin proposes a review of the new cycling offences provided for in clause 106, one year after the clause comes into force, and he set out its provisions with both clarity and his customary humility and his some personal perspective. And we're all grateful for him doing so.

As I understand the noble Lord, the intention of such a review is to assess whether the new offences have impacted on the on the standard of cycling by delivery drivers, and whether further changes in the law are required to ensure that their employers or contractors take greater responsibility for the driving standards of their workers. My Lords, to be clear, these offences apply to all cyclists, regardless of the purpose of their journey or whether they are being paid to do it. Well.

I do, of course, recognise the very real concerns that we've all discussed this on discussing this group of amendments this afternoon around the behaviour of delivery delivery riders, and I would at this point say I completely reject the idea from the the noble Lord Hogan-Howe that we're somehow being complacent and, and, and and ignoring the issue. I mean, certainly Viscount Goschen talked about the importance of using the opportunity to to do something positive. And I'll come on to that in, in a second.

I'm also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for sharing her experience from from City Hall of the of of the London, the London Authority and and the mayor's office and TfL. We of course, recognise the concerns around the behaviour of delivery delivery riders, but it is, however, harder to find firm evidence to suggest their behaviour is so demonstrably worse than in other groups that it is necessary to single them out for review. Hard evidence, I would say, looking at the faces of some noble Lords opposite.

Furthermore, it is not clear what such a review would absolutely achieve. The Health and Safety Executive's guidance already makes clear that those who drive or ride for work should have the skills and expertise required to be safe on the road. The key thing here is the Department for transport, and we discussed this on on Monday in committee. Certainly I spoke to it in the in the later Louis, one of the later groups that we discussed in committee, the Department for transport is also developing a new road safety strategy and will set out more detail shortly.

That will be holistic strategy around all elements of road safety, including both pedestrians. Cyclists, motorcyclists, road users, public transport drivers, the whole gamut. And that, I would say to the noble Lord Viscount Goschen, is the opportunity for us to do something positive and the opportunity to take take a holistic approach to improving road safety, because we're not playing down these issues at all, but we're just trying to find the the best way of approaching it in, in, in a sense

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is complete and whole scale rather than piecemeal. Lord Darzi, I'm sorry to interrupt the Minister, but thanks for giving way. In previous bills, the Transport Department has made the Transport Department has made exactly the point Lord Katz is making, which is that there is a making, which is that there is a strategy coming. It was due in summer of this year. We are now Christmas and there is no date. So Christmas and there is no date. So I'm not reassured by that general point.

And I was surprised to hear him say that we're struggling to find evidence to the problem that we're all talking about, because you only have to walk outside. Our newspapers are carrying out surveys and broadcasters carrying out surveys showing what we all know to be true, not to blame cyclists for everything in the world. But there is clear evidence it's happening. So I'm surprised he said that. And my final point would just be, I wonder if he would like to look into like the health data.

We've only talked about the police data. The health data is completely different set of data. I when people go to A&E, their GP, etc. for injuries caused by cyclists, but it's not recorded in the same way as the police do. So we've got two sets of data. We're not bringing them together. We only ever talk about the ones collected by the police. So I was surprised to hear him say that he couldn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

find the data. Well, to be clear, I was talking about evidence as opposed to simply evidence of causality rather than necessarily data of incidents. But necessarily data of incidents. But let me make some progress, and maybe you may be a little mollified by the time I get to the end of my contribution. Maybe not. The fundamental purpose of the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fundamental purpose of the new offences is to. Saying there's no evidence of causality. I'm afraid it's just what the Department of Transport want the Home Office to believe. The evidence is quite clear and and no better word than from the the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. He said it's a wild west out there and, and many other councils in London trying to ban bikes from their areas now because the danger they cause and these heavy, gigantic food delivery couriers are the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worst offenders of all. Yeah, yeah. Again, I'll say to the noble Lord, I'll make some, I'll make some progress. And maybe, perhaps some progress. And maybe, perhaps before I sit down. Finally I sit down and you can come back at me again. The fundamental purpose of the new offences is to appropriately punish offenders and deter dangerous cycling behaviours. There is no carve out or special There is no carve out or special provision for delivery riders. To be clear, all road users will face equal treatment before the law.

equal treatment before the law. Under these provisions. Like all new government enactments, I can also assure the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin that the Crime and Policing Act will be subject to Post-legislative review 3 to 5 years after Royal Assent. So there's the opportunity to to review the action there. Turning now to amendment 416K from the noble Lord Lord Blencathra, which would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should any of their riders be convicted of any offences under clause 106.

As I said, a complicating factor around all this is, of course, as many noble Lords and their contributions are recognised is, of course, that many of these riders operate in the gig economy. And I'd say there's set out particularly well, I thought, by the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham, and indeed also by noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon in her contribution. We are not always talking about the relationship between an employer and an employee. So using the normal working, what we would consider normal working relationship incentives and rule structure are not always the easiest.

The easiest thing to do. I think it's really worth stating here that particularly as the Employment Rights Bill finally finishes its passage through Parliament yesterday, there will be, as part of that wider package of employment reforms, a major consultation on employment status, which will help clarify these these grey areas. And again, I'd cite the contribution the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham made in in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davis. That is probably the best place to have a review of the grey areas around contractors, employers working in the gig economy.

Because this is not this is clearly a problem that's being identified in the delivery driving sector. But there are many other sectors I remember from my own day, from my time spent in committee, an employment rights bill where there are different areas where the, the, the lack of clarity of employment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences. People are giving way. Again, I hope this is the last time I hope this is the last time I intervene. If he is correct and my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham is correct, that the current law on vicarious liability current law on vicarious liability might mean that the Deliveroo and Uber Eats are not liable for the agents they are using. Would he agents they are using. Would he accept my noble friend Viscount Goschen point we are Parliament if the current law on vicarious the current law on vicarious liability doesn't cover it, then we can amend the law as we suggest to make sure that those companies are liable for the people who are delivering the food in their name, with their great big bag in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back advertising their name. Yes. Well, I don't disagree with the proposition he makes. Of course we are Parliament, but we try and I would, I would suggest, legislate would, I would suggest, legislate in a slightly more deliberative way in a slightly more deliberative way than simply the at at at shooting at ducks as they come as, as as they come up in the stool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they come up in the stool. Would you accept that there is an essential distinction between vicarious liability in civil law, that is, to pay compensation for people injured by employers or whoever, and vicarious liability for criminal actions, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something quite different and very rarely impose. I will certainly be very happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will certainly be very happy to defer to the noble, noble Viscount Astor legal, legal experience and expertise. That is a distinction I think it's worth the committee committee noting, and I'm grateful for him making that point to that point. The individual must bear responsibility for their actions and to face consequences actions and to face consequences for them, which is fundamentally the purpose of clause 106. There is no hard evidence to suggest the working practice of these companies either cause or contribute to serious injuries or fatalities involving cyclists or other road users.

This is a relatively rare occurrence, so respond to, and we understand the points that the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe made when he, in his contribution around the rareness of any any death is one death too many. But it is a relatively rare occurrence compared to, say, road user collisions. Sorry, collisions involving involving cars and pedestrians. But where this does happen, we are determined to ensure the individual is individual is held fully to account. Finally, and I thank him for his patience. Turning to amendment 401, in the name of the noble Lord Lord McColl of Dulwich, this amendment would would require a bicycle delivery, a review of bicycle delivery services in criminal activity.

Let me start by highlighting that through the new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, this government has introduced new laws to expand rights to work checks in the gig economy, including delivery services. The act, which gained Royal Assent just at the start of the month on the second, closes existing loopholes in the Right to Work scheme, whereby only those who engage individuals under contract of employment were required to carry out right to work checks. Section 48 of the act means that those who engage individuals to work as casual or temporary workers under a workers contract, or individual subcontractors, and online matching services that provide detail of service providers to carry out work or services for potential clients or customers for remuneration will be legally required to check a person's right to work in the UK.

Business owners who exploit illegal workers and our system will face the full extent of the law. This includes hefty fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker for repeat offenders, business closures, director disqualifications and, in the most serious cases, up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine. And furthermore, as I'm grateful to him, the noble Lord Lord Blencathra already told us we had seven days of action last month. Immigration enforcement teams arrested 171 delivery riders in a crackdown on illegal working, with 60 detained for removal from the UK.

And I welcome his recognition of Her Majesty's Government's action or in this area. And at that point, at least, we I'm pleased to make common ground with him. I understand many noble Lords who have concerns about any links between delivery services and criminal activity. Let me be clear again, the law applies to anyone and everyone in this country, including delivery drivers. Whilst enforcement action is rightly up to our police, I am clear that anyone found to be committing criminal offences, including delivery drivers, should face the full force of the law.

I won't repeat many of the arguments we made during our earlier debate. When our debate in committee on Monday, I should say on dangerous cycling. But I would also highlight to noble Lord that anyone who uses the road is subject to our traffic laws and the Highway Code, and this includes, of course, cyclists and delivery drivers. The Department for transport with the Health and Safety Executive updated joint guidance called Driving and Road Riding Safety for work in September 2021 that sets out the employers have a duty to manage the risks of their work.

Activities, including where driving can work is required. Employers and self-employed workers also have responsibility to drive appropriately and comply with relevant laws. Furthermore, last year, DfT wrote to the chief executives of the largest food delivery companies to remind them of the importance the government places on the safety of food delivery riders and other road users, and their responsibility and obligations towards them. It is essential that drivers and riders follow the Highway Code. I'll try and respond before I conclude with a couple of specific questions that are asked.

Lord Blencathra asked about the consultation on amendments to secondary legislation on the police removal, storage and disposal of vehicles. I mean, he's a keen spotter of government consultations. I know it may not surprise him, and indeed your Lordships' House know that the response to that consultation will be coming next year. The noble Lady, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, asked specifically around powers on, on on seizure. I can tell her that section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 contains the powers to seize motor vehicles, causing alarm, distress or annoyance.

Clause eight of this bill removes the requirement for a warning in those situations. And also section 165A of the Road Traffic Act allows the police to seize uninsured vehicles, which would of course include illegal e-bikes and e-scooters. And the point she raised on powers of arrest. Powers of arrest was standard, as they would be in in in in in any in any situation. Finally, I'd like to point out to the, the the committee that the government regularly keeps the operation criminal law under review, where gaps or issues are highlighted, will consider whether any further action is necessary.

And obviously, the debate that we've had this afternoon in committee and also in committee on Monday around other aspects of of dangerous cycling are will always help focus our minds when we when we're considering what changes we might make in the future. However, in light of those arguments, I'd hope the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin would be content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. To respond to the minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To respond to the minister's wind up speech. I did put a gentle challenge to the Minister that the House did, was looking for a substantive response, and I believe substantive response, and I believe he was supportive in principle for the need for enhanced road safety, but really not seriously but really not seriously acknowledging that there is a very specific problem around delivery drivers often riding e-bikes, and that we need to do something very specific about that.

And his contention, and I didn't note a wave of support around the House for his contention that there was no evidence that there was a specific problem. Frankly, my Lords, is not a credible response. There is a problem. Every peer in this House and everybody outside of these gates knows that there is a problem. We need to do something about it. And I very much hope that my noble friend or Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra Lord McColl, when they come to give their intentions.

Will continue to press the government hard. And I would very much hope that a Report stage, if there is no movement, and perhaps there's grounds for a discussion before then, that I hope they will bring forward amendments and at that stage see whether the government has support or whether those who are seeking to change the law. Now, essentially, my Lords, large companies are sponsoring and benefiting from law breaking, and the government is turning a blind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eye. And that's not acceptable. Perhaps just in response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps just in response. To that, I can say to maybe anticipating what noble Lord Lord Fink would say, but say in response to noble Lord Viscount Goschen, of course, we're very happy to. We've had a fair bit of engagement over many different aspects of, of, of many different aspects of, of, of of this bill, both before Committee stage started in June. Committee stage and I imagine that will continue. So we are of course collective doors remain open to to discuss all the issues that the bill raises.

So I'd be very happy to to meet peers interested in this, all peers interested in these issues.
17:06
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very grateful to all noble >> I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who've spoken and what I feel has been a very useful debate that has been a very useful debate that has brought the House together on a missive, has affected, is affecting so many of us, and my Lord Vaizey noble Lords Minister was very kind in his remarks and to me personally, until I reciprocate by applauding the loyalty with which he stuck to the Department for Transport three and it is entirely commendable.

But I do feel that strict was won't wash. I think he will sense from across the house that there is real alarm by the situation that confront us in the immediate vicinity and beyond of Westminster. And so I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, that all of these amendments and of course, I would say my own, they're all proportionate and necessary because, as my noble friend made clear, this is a taste of our Lords being flagrantly abused and broken and Lord Mitchell, my noble friend, is absolutely right.

As I also made clear in my speech that this is really affecting those who are most vulnerable in our society, particularly those who either have mobility impairment like myself, or have a visual impairment. I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe for his remarks because, as he says, this does matter. And yes. I would do to be an incremental step to, in effect, reclaiming our streets and making them far more safe because employers are falsely claiming wilful ignorance and stand up to them.

My Lords, I felt my noble friend. The noble, my tank Dawson, because I agree with him. This bill presents a house with a unique opportunity to do something about this situation. This is, as he says, a moment. And I also agree with my friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering that it's nonsensical to allow crime to continue. And I simply say to the Minister that I don't think his comment will be subject the bill to Post-legislative review in five years time, and it reflects the urgency of the situation.

And I think, in closing, what I'd simply say is that my condition means I have to be a risk management expert, whether I like it or not. I have no choice. I think we have a choice here. I think we do need to act, and I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Minister for saying that. He's happy to meet in advance of reports, because I believe that cycling is a very good thing. I myself use my manual chair for exercise.

It's crucial to pain management, but also has wider benefit. Health benefits to cycle or to use a manual chair. But equally, I would say that this sort of cycling predominantly by courier delivery services, frantically breaking every rule of the road to deliver a takeaway is good neither for pedestrians nor cyclists. So I do it for to bring this back at the port, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 346 Lord Blencathra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 346 Lord Blencathra. My Lords, I neglected to say at the start of my last remarks that my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said that the world would not stop turning if he was killed by an e-bike on the streets. Well, that may be the case, but certainly my
17:11
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
may be the case, but certainly my orbit would be certainly destroyed in damaging the orbit of many of us if that were to happen to my noble friend. And possibly one solution is when I fit my bulldozer blade to my own chair, I may precede him and he can ride safely behind me. Now, my amendment 346 states that if anyone is convicted of death by dangerous driving, dangerous cycling, or causing injury or careless cycling, and the e-bike has an illegal battery in its power rating, is greater than 250W or does not meet the approved standard.

Then the supplier of the battery can and should get an unlimited fine as well imposed by the court and not the police. I think we would all agree that the concept I'm trying to get at here is right, and we've got to get at the suppliers of the batteries which do not conform to UL 249 in US standard, or N1519 for the European standard. Now, I admit that the problem here will be enforcement. And just like all the other illegal stuff we've wrestled with in this bill, from knives to pornography, if it is sold online, then it is very difficult indeed to stop.

And illegal sellers will say that, well, they thought it was for an off road bike which can which would be perfectly legal. However, this is where my other new clause 416G might work with a power for the police, which could be delegated to a local authority or other agents to perform. It says that if a retailer supplies batteries which do not comply with statutory guidance on lithium ion battery safety for e-bikes, then the police may issue notices requiring the retailer to recall relevant batteries from consumers, suspend the sale of these batteries, and warn consumers about the risks of relevant batteries.

Again, it's not perfect, and in some ways it's not nearly strong enough to cut off the legal supply of batteries which are not complying with either US or European construction standards. Of course, my new clause and this bill is concerned with dangerous cycling. Recent figures show 11,266 incidents involving e-bikes and e-scooters in 2324, and this figure is rising rapidly. So for the purposes of this bill, we have to get at the supply of illegality of illegally doctored ones and excessively overpowered ones.

However, these are the self-same batteries which cause most fires, including fatal ones. And that is because the number of dangerous and non-compliant batteries in circulation is significant and is a really fast growing problem. Now, authorities rely on data regarding fires and product recalls to gauge the scale of the issue. The office for Product Safety and Standards, the Ops, has issued 21 product recalls and published 29 product safety reports for unsafe e-bikes, scooters and batteries since 2022.

Specific enforcement action was taken against the brand unit power pack up e-bike batteries linked to several fires across England, with withdrawal notices issued to four online marketplaces, 20 sellers and manufacturers. Now, fires caused by lithium ion batteries are surging rapidly. The London Fire Brigade data shows they responded to 88 e-bike fires in 2022, which rose to 134 in 2025. As of late September. In 2023, almost 200 fires involving e-bikes and e-scooters were reported across the UK, resulting in ten fatalities.

Now, my Lords, the rise in fires is primarily linked to unregulated conversion kits and low cost batteries, often purchased online marketplaces. That fires are not our concern today. The rise in road injuries as a motorbike claims organisation has said, is primarily linked to one illegally modified e-bikes that exceed the UK's legal power limit of 250W and a maximum speed of 15.5mph. Many of which are used by the gig economy delivery riders. They say many in my experience, as every one, two reckless riders, individuals riding in excessive speeds on pavements in an unsafe manner.

Three says the the motorbike claims organisation rental providers, for example lime companies that fail to monitor or discipline riders who break traffic laws, and for employers such as food delivery companies UberEats. Deliveroo, whose gig economy model incentivises speed over safety. But we dealt with that before I did a quick Google search how to make my e-bike go faster. And so dozens of adverts for the conversion chip, which instantly overrode the 15.5mph limit. Here is just one example. It says a tuning chip of the third generation with Bluetooth for e-bikes.

Speed box 30B tuning speed box 3BZ30B tuning brings a unique connection between your e-bike and your smartphone. Optimised for performance and ultimate riding enjoyment. It removes the speed limit so you can ride at unlimited speed. Just one of many hundreds of adverts online, allowing people to illegally speed up their e-bike from 15.5mph to an unlimited speed. Now there lies the problem in a nutshell dozens of adverts selling products that cyclists can ride at unlimited speed and overpowered batteries.

Now, the noble Lords Minister know that there's a real problem with e-bike crime all across these areas. I've identified in these amendments and other noble Lords have spoken about. And of course, the amendments are technically flawed and I. But I'm certain that my noble friend Viscount Goschen has said we'll have to come back at report in two months time with some better polished amendments which address these issues. Noble Lords have highlighted today and in and in previous debates and in future debates, I say to the government, there will never be a better opportunity than this bill to tackle the scourge out of control.

E-bike crime, e-bike clutter, inconvenience, illegal batteries and sellers, and deaths from fires and road injuries. And I urge the noble Lords, the Ministers and the Ministers in the Home Office to bring us back amendments and new clauses we can all support, and I am happy to work with all noble colleagues to see if we can draft some finely constructed amendments, which would not offend on any legal technicalities. My noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move. New clause 346. Proposed after clause 106, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause 106, in that the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I'm sorry again to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm sorry again to rather disagree with my noble friend, although I have some sympathy with the underlying sympathy with the underlying problem. Declaring an interest I have three electric bikes. All of them, I hope, have got fully approved batteries. One is the Brompton, which I go from Kings Cross to this place and very good it is too, and I hope wholly safe. There is a problem with batteries. My noble friend has addressed it, and particularly with regard to Fars, I personally try never to charge a battery in a house, even with my bikes, which are both expensive and I hope very good.

There is a problem with them and that needs to be addressed. But the real problem with this amendment is that actually, other than providing the occasion for expected for inspecting the battery, there is no obvious relationship between the criminal offences which are specified in the exception. And looking at the battery, there is no necessary connection, no indeed probable connection between the battery and the offence. So I'm very much against linking those of criminal offences with the inspection of the battery.

Moreover, as my noble friend has said, the enforcement problems are very great here because most many of these batteries are bought online and trying to identify the contract of supply would be next to impossible. But my noble friend is right to draw attention to the danger of batteries, which are inherently unsafe. And he's right to to draw attention to the fact that people are disconnecting the controls on their bicycles so that they can go very much faster than the law allows.

And those are matters which should be addressed by government, but not, I think, in this particular amendment.
17:20
17:20
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
On the roads. It's certainly an offence to use an e-bike beyond a certain speed. I think it's 15 miles an hour. But of course e-bikes are also used for off road

**** Possible New Speaker ****

purposes and at that point the speed regulations are not in play. The answer to the problem is to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The answer to the problem is to ensure that the speed limits do apply whenever the e-bike is used. apply whenever the e-bike is used. I fail to understand why it's a criminal offence to use your e-bike criminal offence to use your e-bike above a specified speed on the road, but not on the pavement seems ridiculous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ridiculous. I use my e-bike, one of them, to go round my fields. I don't see why, although I don't in fact go more than 15 miles an hour because I should fall off and b it's not necessary and c they can't. I can't see, as a matter of principle, why I should be restrained from going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more than 50 miles an hour in my own land. I don't want to prolong this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't want to prolong this, but the purpose of this amendment is not to regulate Viscount is not to regulate Viscount Hailsham speed on his field. The concern is e-bike riders on pavements, and I suggest the answer pavements, and I suggest the answer is to ensure people can't drive more than a specified speed on the pavements, if at all. Of course, they're not allowed to drive on the pavement at all, so they shouldn't be driving in that way. But the point surely is that if that is the case, there is a specified speed limit.

It is already a criminal offence. If you conspire to provide a battery for the specific purpose

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of enabling e-bike riders to break the speed limit. Jolly clever speeches. It seems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jolly clever speeches. It seems to me that the general point of this group of amendments, and indeed the earlier one, is to bring indeed the earlier one, is to bring this matter of great public concern to the attention of the government during the course of this debate. during the course of this debate. We're not now this afternoon, looking for statutory perfection. We're looking for the government to We're looking for the government to pay attention. And everybody, be it my noble friend Viscount Goschen
17:22
17:24
17:25
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as was mentioned earlier in committee when speaking to amendment 346, we take the issue of bike alterations very seriously. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur raises a similar issue with these amendments, but by placing the onus on suppliers, I think there are a two pronged approach to tackling the issue is welcome. We know that many of the most dangerous e-bikes on our roads are not the result of amateur tinkering alone. They are enabled by a market that supplies batteries far in excess of 250 watt limit set out in law, or batteries that fail to meet even the most basic safety standards for lithium ion technology.

These batteries transform what should be a pedal assisted cycle into something much closer to an unregistered electric motorcycle, which are often capable of significant speed and acceleration, and frequently used in dense urban areas, on pavements and in shared spaces. There is also wider public safety dimension. The Lord's unsafe lithium ion batteries are not merely a road safety issue, they are a growing fire risk in homes, flats and shared accommodation. The London Fire Brigade and other services have repeatedly warned about fires caused by substandard e-bike batteries, often supplied online, with little oversight and no meaningful accountability.

This amendment would reinforce the message that safety standards are not optional, and that those who profit from ignoring them may indeed should face consequences. Thank you.
17:27
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for his amendments on the regulation of e-bike batteries. Your Lordships' e-bike batteries. Your Lordships' House may recall the recent passage through this house of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which received Royal Assent in July and underlines the government's determination to take action on this point. Amendment 360 would provide for the prosecution of any person who had supplied an unsafe battery to an individual, and that and that individual was subsequently convicted of any of the offences.

In clause 106 of the Bill while an unsafe battery, and by this I mean one that does not comply with existing product safety standards, could put the e-bike at risk of catching fire, particularly while placed on charge. As we've heard from many noble Lords in their contribution, particularly Lord Jamieson of Gao, it's not something that would directly lead to a person riding their cycle carelessly or dangerously. And again, the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham anticipated my argument, and indeed more eloquently than I might, the battery is simply something which powers the e-bike.

It cannot, on its own, enable the rider to overcome speed or power restrictions provided for in the regulations. This would come from a broader set of modifications concerning the electric motor and other component parts, and I'll come on to that in just a bit. But to go back to the battery, as the battery will not play a direct role in any incident, leading to a prosecution of the kind provided for at clause 106. I hope the noble Lord Lord Blencathra might see that this particular amendment is not required, and he also in his in moving his amendment talked about amendment, talked about those chips which are can allow bikes to be driven and frankly, hair raising speeds that would make them unsafe to the for the actual user to to to to cycle out.

One would imagine let alone other users. To be clear, those dangerous those chips, those kind of modification is already illegal. E-bikes with those chips don't comply with the electrically assisted pedal cycle regulations. And so, you know, there is already a law in place to cover it. The the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement is of course also sorry. Taking action. Which is very fine words. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is very fine words. But many of us are watching every day e-bikes and ordinary bikes going e-bikes and ordinary bikes going past the outside of this building when there are red lights driving through. Many of us have experienced driving up and down roads with people coming down one roads with people coming down one way systems at us in the wrong direction in terms of taking action. direction in terms of taking action. Ones watch police at the side of the road and here taking no action whatsoever.

What does taking action actually mean in practice and in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detail? Even outside this building? Well, to I'm not I'm not sure if the noble Lords are here for the the noble Lords are here for the for the previous group where we talked at length. The wider the wider issue of the the use of e-bikes, as I said there, the DFT is undertaking a road safety strategy consultation and that is strategy consultation and that is something that is that is going to take a holistic view. All road safety across all, all, all modes of transport, including obviously of transport, including obviously the very important thing of protecting pedestrians and those in mobility scooters and wheelchairs.

And that's and that's the right way, that's the right way to approach it. That is the at heart, the the nub of the discussion that we had on, on the previous group to to return to Lord Blencathra current amendments that we're, that we're discussing. I want to turn to amendment 146146J which relates to the sale of unsafe batteries. Again, this is where the powers in the Product Regulation and Metrology Act will apply. That act has already created the powers to allow government to change regulations to respond to emerging technologies, including e-bikes, batteries and conversion kits.

Lord in their contribution, Lord Davies of Gower and noble noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon rightly pointed out this the concern over batteries isn't solely limited to e-bikes, and there's increasing concern about how they are used and charged. So proposals are being delivered for public developed rather for public consultation on the product safety framework, which include measures to clarify the roles and responsibilities of online marketplaces, as well as updates to the core framework to better reflect the risks posed by newer product such as e-bikes.

We know there is online marketplaces and the noble Lord Lord Mancroft are definitely kind of made this case very forcefully in moving his amendment. These online marketplaces are primarily responsible for selling products on the marketplace, including e-bike batteries that do not comply with product safety standards. However, while the Act will improve the UK's regulatory framework, legislation is not the only option to mitigate risks from e-bikes and components and will use existing regulations or improve and modernise standards when required. And I think at this point in time, it's also worth talking about action and enforcement.

It's worth pointing out that this obviously varies across individual police forces, but there are many published examples of enforcement action by police forces taking place. A case in point is in Lancashire, where Lancashire Police Force announced in November 2025 that they had now seized 1000 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters operating within their borders. So there is activity out there. There is action enforcement action being taken. XR other examples of the work that we might be talking about to, to, to address the issues that are being raised here include the work of the Office of Product and Safety Standards, as cited by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra with the with the with the British Standards Institution, to provide a fast track standard for lithium ion batteries.

And they expect this will be published in 2026. More broadly, the powers listed in amendment 416J. Replicate enforcement powers and penalties already available to market surveillance authorities, including trading standards, which seek to ensure that only safe products are placed on the market. And also, I would say, and this sort of echoes of the previous discussion we had on the previous amendments, I'd say noble Lord Lord Pannick is absolutely right. They're already offences in places in this case, and we expect everybody, every user, whatever their whatever their vehicle, whatever their mode of transport and whether that that vehicle is illegal or legal to obey the Highway Code, the rules, the rules of the road and where it's applicable, speed limits.

So there are offences as as the noble Lord Lord Pannick pointed out, there are offences speeding. I would say to I agree with him. Earlier on I'd take the noble noble Lord, Lord Viscount Hailsham. If I mean if I had a field, I'd probably might like an electric bike to to move around my gardens a bit. A bit too small for that, frankly. But I would have assumed off in the off road sense. I'm speaking slightly off the cuff here, but I assume in the case of off road activity, the danger of hitting pedestrians, wheelchair users, others is reduced from situations where the highway code does apply in full, where there are other users that one has to take a take account of.

I'm grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, and the debate in the previous group around the dangers of concerns that we that people have around around the use of e-bikes, particularly e-bikes, particularly those that are used for perhaps for business rather than leisure or or private private use and to respond directly to the noble Lord. Lord Garnier. You know, we are you know, it's not to say the government just because we're not saying these amendments are the best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean the government isn't aware of public concerns.

And I would reiterate what I said in response to the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin and Viscount Goschen and in the previous group, we're very happy to have a meeting between between now and Report stage to discuss those concerns further. And, and, you know, reiterate the fact that there are there are several wheels in motion that are looking to to attack the aspects of the problem from different from different directions. But that offer remains on the table. So I'm grateful for the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for raising the issues, but for the reasons I've outlined,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd ask him to withdraw his amendment. To the Minister for his response

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for his response on. All noble Lords have spoken in this short debate, and I think the noble Lords and Ministers are noble Lords and Ministers are getting the message from nearly all sides, apart from the noble Lord Lord Polak in this particular debate, that there's a real problem here, it's the government's not addressing and we want.
17:35
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
addressing and we want. >> Mischief here. My my comments were simply addressed to the specifics of this amendment. But I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do accept there's a problem and it does need to be addressed. Clarification on noble Lord I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clarification on noble Lord I didn't wish to misquote him, but as far as his own comments were concerned, I'm not aware of any of these thousands of batteries for sale. None of them specifically say, buy this battery and illegally break the law, add it to your legal break the law, add it to your legal bike, and break the law by going on the pavement. There are more subtle than that. The closest I came was than that. The closest I came was in the last debate where one said, this is suitable for off road and commuting at 67mph, battery or motor capable of that, and that the advertising of them is much more subtle.

But everyone knows what's going on. These batteries are being sold for illegal purposes. Now. The problem I had with these amendments is I had to get them in scope for the bill. I had to pull my punches. I had to narrowly tweak them in some ways. Therefore, of course, the amendments therefore are technically flawed. I would like to put down an amendment on the chips, but that I think was not in order. So in order to try and get, I get the concept of the problem which all noble Lords support, amendments which I accept are flawed, but the amendments seek to achieve, they're consistent with the rest of the bill.

We have had problems with knife crime. So in addition to penalties for the carriers and users, we have clauses trying to cut off and penalise the online suppliers. And the same goes for crossbows. Then we've had all the sexual offences in part five of the bill, and again, attempts to tackle the online supply of illegal photos and lots more. And we have lots more clauses relating to online supply for legal material. Now, I'm grateful for my noble friend and friend Lord Garnier and he did make the point.

It's easy to pick flaws and I can pick all the flaws myself in the on the technical faults in these amendments, but what we're getting at here is every noble Lord has spoken as feeling the government is not doing enough on this issue, and I believe we can do a lot more for it. I, I would hope that of course, I would want the police to grab every massive, overweight and over fast illegal bike out there and destroy them, but they'll never keep up with the supply, so we've got to cut off the supply, in my opinion, and my amendment in their inadequate way was seeking to do that.

So I think what we've got to do before report, and I'm grateful for the noble Lord, the Minister, I think we've had a bit of movement in the last two days. The Home Office now offering to discuss with colleagues how we can get this a lot better, and I hope we can, with noble Lords around the House, agree something at report which does tackle this specific problem without causing a great new problems of enforcement. But something needs to be done, and I don't think we're prepared to wait for this Department of Transport strategy on on safer cycling or road use, which we may or may never see.

And I suspect when we do see it, it will be grossly inadequate in tackling the scourge of of of huge, heavy illegal e-bikes mowing down pedestrians on the pavement. So in view of the fact that the Ministers, both Ministers, have been kind enough to agree to meet us before report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 107 stand part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill. My Lords, I rise to oppose the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to oppose the question of clause 107, 108, 109 stand part of the bill. These clauses were added by the government without any debate
17:38
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
government without any debate during the Report stage of the Bill. In the other place, they have therefore not been subjected to the scrutiny that they deserve. It is only right that, as the revising chamber, we fulfil our duty in that respect. I want to be clear from the outset that we on these benches do not doubt for a moment the courage, dedication or indispensable role of our emergency workers. Indeed, it was the conservative government that legislated to bring forward the specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker through the Assaults on Emergency Workers Offences Act in 2018.

But we must also ensure that the criminal law remains proportionate, coherent and workable. In our view, these clauses fail that test clauses 101, one and 109 introduce a series of new offences relating to the racially or religiously aggravated abuse of emergency workers. The government presents these measures as necessary enhancements to the law protecting emergency workers from abuse motivated by racial or religious hostility. No one disputes the seriousness of such conduct, but these clauses do not simply strengthen existing protections. They create overlapping, confusing, and potentially sweeping new offences that go beyond what is necessary or desirable in a free society.

First, the provisions duplicate offences already well established in our law threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour motivated by racial or religiously hostile religious hostility is already an offence under sections 18 and 29 of the Public Order Act of 1986. I completely understand that those offences cannot be committed inside a dwelling, whilst the new offences in clauses 107 or 108 can be committed inside a person's house, that is a key difference between these offences. Both clauses also require the conduct to be racially or religiously hostile.

But again, that aggravation is already captured by the criminal law. Section 66 of the Sentencing Code creates a statutory aggravating factor for any offence based on racial and religious hostility, and furthermore, section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 creates a specific offence of using words or behaviour which cause harassment, alarm or distress, and is religiously or racially aggravated. That offence can be committed inside a dwelling, so a person who
17:41
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 107 Stand Part. Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

racially abuses an emergency worker inside their home can already be prosecuted under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. My Lords, it is abundantly clear that there is abundantly clear that there is absolutely no need for these new offences. My Lords, clause 107 in particular, has an extraordinarily particular, has an extraordinarily wide net. It includes not only threatening behaviour but insulting behaviour. This is a highly behaviour. This is a highly subjective term that will not create clarity or certainty, but do not take my word for it.

The Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House has criticised these clauses for this precise reason. Their 11th report states, and I quote clause 107 criminalises insults, and clause 108 introduces the term distress. This potentially leaves people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis. In addition, clause 108 indicates a defence for reasonable conduct which is not defined. As a result, the precise scope of these clauses and the criminal offence contained within them is uncertain. Unquote. Turning to clause 108, matters become even more troubling.

This clause would criminalise conduct merely likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, again with the addition of racial or religious hostility, but with penalties that do not align with the broader public order framework. Here we see threatening or abusive behaviour already covered elsewhere, reframed in a way that risks catching behaviour far removed from the core of criminal wrongdoing. While a defendant may raise a defence, the burden shifting mechanism in subsection seven is unusual and risk being applied inconsistently. My Lords, it is a long standing principle that the criminal law should be carefully calibrated, limited to what is necessary and drafted so that ordinary citizens can understand the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

The law must be strong where it matters, not sprawling and duplicative. When Parliament repeatedly lays offence upon offence, we risk incoherence, overcriminalization and legal uncertainty, none of which helps emergency workers or the public. So if the government believes the existing framework is insufficient, it should amend those statutes directly, not create parallel criminal regimes that overlap and contradict one another. So, in conclusion, my Lords, clause 107 and 108 are unnecessary, duplicative, and risk expanding the criminal law in ways that Parliament has previously rejected.

They confuse rather than clarify. They undermine coherence rather than strengthen protection. We owe emergency workers the best possible statutory safeguards, but there must be safeguards that work. These clauses do not, without reason and in the interests of principled and proportionate criminal law. I urge the House to oppose clauses 107 and 108. My Lords, I beg to move.
17:44
17:45
Baroness Rebuck Portrait Baroness Rebuck (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower has actually explained all of my reservations about these clauses very articulately, so I won't repeat that. I wanted to note that I think that these clauses add an unnecessary way of implying that the public are a threat to emergency workers, and I wanted to ask why religiously and racially aggravated offences were particularly being highlighted here, as though somehow members of the general public were prone to that kind of behaviour.

I think it's an unhelpful. Signposting, if you want, because as as has been rightly pointed out, absolutely. Emergency workers, if they are in any way dealt with in aggressively harassed or in the way we have laws to deal with it. So to highlight this now implies that there's something extra to be added, as though there is a kind of problem out there that the public are going around racially abusing workers, that there's particular offences in mind. That's the first thing, I think duplication of law ends up being, to be honest, virtue signalling.

I'm not sure that virtue is being signalled, but nonetheless, it does seem to me that it is a box ticking exercise rather than an effective piece of lawmaking. The other thing that I am very worried about is the notion of insulting behaviour. I mean, I'm probably guilty of it. One does get frustrated sometimes. What on earth does it mean? It's entirely subjective. What is insulting behaviour? And it would be helpful, maybe for the noble Lord to Minister, to give us illustrations and examples of what constitutes insulting behaviour.

How will people be charged with this? But what, of course it does is is it immediately makes people maybe fearful of raising complaints
17:47
17:48
17:50
17:51
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
and supporting the objectives of the government. And I have to say to the noble Lord Davis, to the noble Lord Jackson, and to the noble Lord Jackson, and to the noble Lady Baroness Fox, that I can't support and won't support their approach to delete these clauses from the bill. Emergency workers, as the noble Lady has said, workers, as the noble Lady has said, risk their safety every day to protect the public. They deserve robust protection through legislation, especially against abuse directed towards them because of their protected characteristics, which is not only harmful but erodes the principle of respect and public service.

Core values of this democracy. As the noble Lady rightly said, emergency workers when they walk through a door of a private dwelling, are faced with the circumstances in that private dwelling. They cannot walk away. They're there because of an emergency, perhaps medical. They're there because of an emergency, perhaps police. They're there because of an emergency, perhaps fire. And if they face abuse in that private dwelling, then they deserve our support, just as they have that support. If they face abuse on the street for a racially aggravated reason, if somebody does something at the end of their path on a street at Acacia Avenue and abuses them, they will find themselves under the curse course of the law on those matters.

I believe, and this is what these clauses are about, that if they're racially abused in the property, then the emergency worker deserves that protection. And it's critical for sectors like health and policing to have that legal support. We cannot leave them, as the noble Lady rightly said, to be abused. The law must recognise this and make sure we have proper protection now. Currently, as has been mentioned in the Public Order Act 1986 and in section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, they provide important safeguards in public spaces.

It is not acceptable to call somebody a racially abusing name in a public space. Why is it important to call them that name in a place of a private dwelling? It is not acceptable. And so we are going to bring those clauses into play. Now the noble Lord says, why do we do this? Well, we do this because Sergeant Candice Gill of Surrey Police, supported by the Deputy Chief Constable and may I just say supported by the police and Crime Commissioner, Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, has campaigned for this change in the law, having experienced personally racial abuse in a private home.

So it's not a sort of technical matter that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord Jackson, has mentioned. It is a real issue of racial abuse in a private dwelling to a police officer serving the public, doing her job, trying to protect and support the public, and being racially abused with no consequence whatsoever. So Sergeant Candice Gill, for whom I would be proud to call this legislation Candice's law, is campaigning and has campaigned to make this a an amendment to the bill.

And the noble Lord Jackson asked why we brought it forward in the House of Commons as an amendment. I'll tell him why, because it was brought to our attention. It's an action we don't support, and it's an area where we think action needs to be taken. That's why we've brought it. I don't think it's fair that people are racially abused in their home. Sergeant Candice Gill has campaigned for it. She's brought it forward. She's brought it to the attention of the government. We brought an amendment forward in the House of Commons, and it's now before this House, and I believe it should have support.

So clauses 107 to 109. We'll close that legislative loophole. The removal of the dwelling exception will make racially or religiously aggravated abuse of an emergency worker in a private dwelling an offence. The change will ensure that offenders prosecuted under clause 107 face a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. The offence in clause 108 will be liable to a fine not exceeding level four. And, as I've said, Lisa Townsend, the conservative Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, has said, and I quote from her, this long overdue change to the law would never have happened without Sergeant Gill's courage and determination.

And I think we owe it to Sergeant Gill and to any other officer, health worker, fire service worker, police officer who's been racially abused in their home, in a home that they've gone to help support individuals in that home. They deserve our support. Of course, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think for the avoidance of doubt, we need to put it on record that everyone deprecates racially everyone deprecates racially aggravated abuse of hard working, decent emergency workers. That's decent emergency workers. That's taken as read. But but the noble Lord is asking us to consider legislation when we already under section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020, have a situation which permits a court to consider any offence as being racially or religiously aggravated. Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for a separate offence where a person commits an offence under section four, four and five of the Public Order Act and and the fact of the matter is, well, I'm intervening on the Minister, so we're not allowed to intervene on intervention.

As much as I'd love to be intervened on by the noble Lady who will be supporting my amendment later on and and the other, may I finally say to the noble Minister, if I beg the House's indulgence, the Select Committee on the Constitution did specifically say that both these clauses 107 and 108, criminalise insults and introduced the term distress, and they potentially leave people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis. So not only do we already have existing legislation, but the language in this new legislation is sufficiently loose that it will give rise, I think, to unintended consequences.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please, I hope the noble Lord will accept. I'm not indicating that either he or anybody else would accept and understand that would accept and understand that language. But I think the point is we have to define and be clearer we have to define and be clearer about the definition in relation to racially aggravated insults. And the reason that we brought this forward is on the back of police representations from senior representations from senior officers in Surrey police, from Sergeant Candice Gill, who was herself racially abused with the support of the police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey.

And we have examined this internally. We believe that the law needs to be clarified and that's why we brought this legislation forward. Now, again, the noble Lord also asked me to examine why it's only covering race and religion, and we don't cover protected characteristics of a sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability, and why the government hasn't tabled such an amendment. Now, he will know that the Law Commission is already examining its review of hate crime laws. It's a complex area and it's important we get the changes right.

But I'll tell him this we are considering that we have given a manifesto commitment to do that and ensuring that we do that, we will bring forward conclusions at Report stage in this House to give effect to those manifesto commitments on sexual orientation and transgender identity and disability. To extend the proposals still further. And I give him notice of that now so that he doesn't accuse me of pulling a fast one at Report stage. We will do that.

But but the details of that will be details that we have to bring forward in due course.
17:59
18:00
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I do agree with my noble friend. As I said in my introductory remarks, the emergency worker and as the noble Lady Baroness Doocey said, who turns up at a house, who enters that property for the health reason of an individual in the property for a criminal justice reason, because of activity which is causing threatened alarm and or because of potentially fire services. When they enter that property, they do so to fulfil a duty, they have to stay in that duty, and if they're punishable by a potential offence, if they're abused on the street before they enter the property.

But yet when they enter the property, that abuse can be currently, unless this law changes accepted principle, part of the job that they have to just take on the chin. I don't accept that. That's why we've put down clauses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

107, 108, 109. And of course I'll give way to the noble Lord. I mean, ordinarily grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for giving way, but he will know because he was a diligent and because he was a diligent and assiduous constituency MP of the many, many people that go into clinical settings, for instance, clinical settings, for instance, A&E, who are very distressed and discombobulated and upset about their condition and don't quite their condition and don't quite know what's going on, who sometimes will say things that they regret.

Now, I'm not saying that's right. And some of them are not culturally sensitive. For instance. Now my point is that may or may not reach a criminal threshold, but my main point is setting aside. If you accept the principle that you need new legislation, the. My main point is that that, frankly, that those people are in a very, very difficult position and that if you have language on in the primary legislation which is loose and opaque, then you're going to have a situation where people who are not or are very marginal in terms of reaching the criminal threshold, are criminalised and liable to go to prison for up to two years.

And surely that's not something that the government will be keen to encourage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government is keen to encourage no racial abuse against individuals who are doing their job, and that's what the government is doing in clauses 107, 108 and 109. doing in clauses 107, 108 and 109. And I say to him now that again that the clause is set out a broad thrust of definitions, as in legislation in the Crime and legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill, ultimately it will be for and in all of these cases now, police will usually and health workers will have body worn cameras on.

It will be for evidential material to be judged by police, to determine whether they wish to refer that to the CPS. If this legislation is passed for the CPS to review that incident that has occurred, that's led to the potential referral for the CPS to determine whether it is a evidential threshold that is potentially worthy of prosecution, and it will be for that to be put before a court of some sort for determination as to whether that criminal threshold has been crossed.

So in all of that, it's not just the simple measure of passing the legislation here today. It's a matter of judgement by police officers, by CPS officials, and ultimately by a judge or a jury to determine the outcome of those cases. And I would just say to him that, again, like in most legislation, I want none of this to go to court. I want it to be changing behaviour for people who are potentially looking at this as a racially abusive case and in terms of not knowing on the street, but in their home.

And I hope this sets a minimum standard, which is what this Parliament should be about, that says we're not going to tolerate this. And that's why I support the inclusion of the clauses. And we'll give way to the noble Lord.
18:04
18:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord. I mean, we will, as ever, always reflect on what has been said. The judgement we have made is, as in the clauses before this House, as introduced and supported by the House of Commons, there is opportunity, if he so wishes, to put amendments to the clauses at Report stage to reflect any view that he has. But that's the judgement we've made. And if we go back to the principle of the discussion we're having today, the principle of the discussion from the noble Lord Davis, is that we strike out these clauses.

That's not a principle I can accept. I'm grateful for the noble Baroness Doocey support in that. And whatever reflection takes place on this, the principle is that we have put these for a purpose and our purpose. I've articulated, I hope, and I wish for the House to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that principle, noble Lord sits down. Just finally, I think that the principle finally, I think that the principle of saying that we do not, that nobody here is going against the principle of racially or religiously insulting, harassing, being vile to people. We're talking being vile to people. We're talking about changing the criminal law, and we're talking about ensuring that the concerns of the that the concerns of the Constitution Committee, not of Baroness Fox, of Lord Jackson or anyone else, is looked at again so that we are in a situation where the real life that the noble Lord, the Minister, referred to in justifying this is reflected in the fact that in many instances, emergency workers are called when people are in the height of distress, and people will and do and can say all sorts of things.

I appreciate that, but I'm concerned that that distress is going to be that much more aggravated. And if you want a toxic atmosphere happened, if two loosely, people can start saying, I'm going to call the police on you. When somebody subjectively interprets behaviour as insulting, and I think it's reasonable for us to raise that at committee, and so would the noble Lord. Instead of saying, I disagree with you on principle, be prepared to look at what the Constitution Committee has said and what has been reflected on here, and see if perhaps, in order to keep the principle, he has.

The wording of criminal law can be tightly drawn so that we don't criminalise ordinary people in distress, saying things which somebody subjectively might see as insulting. That is a very dangerous, illiberal, potentially threaten threatening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behaviour from a government to the public. Okay. Well, I don't think I'm being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't think I'm being illiberal. I accept the noble Lady may have a different view on that. Can I say to her that we will come later in the consideration of amendments to a noble Lords? amendments to a noble Lords? Jackson defining further some of the aspects of clause 109. I'm always happy to look at the points that the noble Lord Pannick has mentioned, but the judgement we have made is that these clauses should remain part of the Bill.

The noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, has asked that they be removed from the bill. That is a clear difference between us. I've explained why it should be included in the bill. He's explained why he believes it shouldn't be included in the bill. There's a difference in there, and if he wishes to take that stance at report, then let's that stance at report, then let's have a discussion on it. My noble. About I've just been passed a letter as well that I've been reminded I sent on the 12th of November because it's a long letter which I've sent to the noble Lord Strathclyde on the the bill and on the clauses.

I did send him a letter on the 12th of November, for which I've now been given a copy for ease of recall, and we have answered some of the points that the noble Lord Pannick has put in, that I don't know as yet whether this letter has been made public, but I'm very happy to place a copy of the one, two, three, four pages of the letter that I wrote to Lord Strathclyde in the library of the House for the noble Lord Pannick and anybody else to examine in due course.

And then obviously there is the opportunity at report for the noble Lord Geddes to retain his amendments, to remove these clauses and or for any member of the House once they've had an opportunity to look at the letter to the noble Lord Strathclyde, to potentially examine amendments to. Meet the objectives of the noble Lord Pannick has mentioned. But I stand today to say we support these clauses, and I would hope that the noble Lord at this instance, will reflect on that and not move to remove them.
18:09
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for responding to this debate, and I actually spent 32 years as a police officer and as a emergency worker. And I'm still not persuaded by these clauses. As I established in my opening speech, all scenarios for criminalising the racial or religiously aggravated abuse of emergency workers are already covered by the criminal law, and this is mere repetition. There exists a raft of legislation which permits the prosecution of a person who commits such conduct.

The Sentencing Code already provides for any offence to be aggravated by racial or religious hostility. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates a specific criminal offence for using racially or religiously hostile language. The Public Order Act 1986 also contains further such provisions. It is absolutely not correct to claim that emergency workers need further protection under the law. When it comes to abusive language. The bill therefore creates duplicate offences with different thresholds, different maximum penalties, all while leaving the existing offences untouched.

How is this meant to improve enforcement? How are police officers supposed to choose which offence fits which circumstance? The government has not offered an answer. I'm afraid by creating new standalone offences that replicate existing ones, the government risks producing confusion rather than clarity. Police officers, paramedics and other emergency workers deserve a legal framework that is simple, enforceable and unambiguous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I've said this in in my response to him in committee, but I think it's important. Again, I just think it's important. Again, I just comment from what I've said in the letter to the noble Lord Strathclyde because again, this Strathclyde because again, this just reemphasizes the point that I hear the offences under the Public Order Act 1986 have been Order Act 1986 have been interpreted by the law over the years, but essentially it is in years, but essentially it is in relation to not private dwellings and the amendments that were the clauses that we put in the bill are about private dwellings, and it gives greater clarification.

And that's the point I'm putting to the noble Lord. And again, in the four page letter that I will happily put into the house, which was a letter to the noble Lord Strathclyde. That's one of the key points that I make, which I've made in this debate, but which I also just reemphasize in the noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

closing remarks. I'm grateful for that. And perhaps it would be easier to amend perhaps it would be easier to amend the original law on it rather than introduce it, as these clauses. As introduce it, as these clauses. As I said, police officers, paramedics and other emergency workers deserve a legal framework that is simple, enforceable and unambiguous. And enforceable and unambiguous. And what is before us is none of those things. Given the poor defence I things. Given the poor defence I suggest offered by the government, I think this may be an issue that we have to return to at report, but for now I do beg leave to perhaps withdraw my opposition to the question.

The clause stand part of the bill.
18:13
18:13
18:13
None Portrait Amendment:347 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-

and my noble friend Baroness Stowell, who is now retired, moved to the Domestic Abuse Bill in 2021. to the Domestic Abuse Bill in 2021. The aim of the amendment, which introduces a new clause after introduces a new clause after clause 109, is to criminalise coercive, controlling or coercive behaviour by so-called psychotherapists or counsellors, but who are in fact no better than but who are in fact no better than charlatans or quacks who prey on their clients. Generally, young people taking appalling advantage of their vulnerabilities, abusing their misplaced trust and often charging them very substantial fees in the process.

My Lords, I should make it clear that this amendment does not imply any criticism of the many honest, altruistic and understanding psychotherapists and counsellors who daily help patients and clients up and down the country with advice and therapy. Such honest psychotherapists offer counselling and help to their clients or patients, and generally assist them through very difficult times in their lives. However, it is a fact that psychotherapists and counsellors are not regulated by law. Anyone is entitled to set up in practice, styling themselves as psychotherapists or counsellors, and that latitude has enabled many to abuse the trust of those who come to them for help.

I say that latitude is regrettable. The United Kingdom is unusual in this. In America, therapists in every state need to be licensed in a European context. Practising therapists are usually asked for a document known as the European Certificate of Psychotherapy. Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands all require training and registration. As a psychotherapist, before anyone can practice. As such, the particular evil which has given rise to this amendment is the pattern of charlatan therapists or counsellors securing clients or patients, usually young and deeply troubled, and then effectively taking over their lives.

Typically, such clients are having difficulties in coming to terms with their worlds. They are often gullible and far too credulous and easily led. Tragically, the pattern of abuse for such it is far too often involves the quack therapists in persuading their young clients that they have been abused by their parents or families as children, implanting them false memories of dreadful abuse, often sexual abuse that never happened, and quite intentionally alienating them from their families. Clients are then led to believe that their parents and families are responsible for all that has gone wrong in their lives, and to come under the influence of this insidious persuasion, to rely on their counsellors by a form of transference for misplaced support and false guidance.

Far too often, this maligned process has led to separation of young people from their families, sometimes permanent, frequently lasting for years. My Lords, there have been many harrowing reports of this behaviour and its horrendous results going back years. A recent and thoroughly researched article in the Sunday Times in August of this year by the well respected journalist and deputy editor of the Sunday Times magazine, Francesca Angelini, carried the title. My therapist told me mum had abused me. She hadn't.

Angelini's article set out accounts of a number of young people who've been subjected to the implantation of false memories of childhood trauma by therapists. She also explored the expert evidence of what has become known as false memory syndrome, and she quoted Peter Nash, a psychologist and former president of the section for Hypnosis and Psychosomatic Medicine at the Royal Society of Medicine, as being in no doubt that the syndrome is real. Mr. Nash said, a false memory. It's very dangerous and the effect can be devastating.

It feels entirely like a memory. The clients remember it clearly, so they're deeply affronted when a person suggests it might not be true. If the alleged perpetrator denies it, then yes, the chances are they will cut them off. Miss Angelini reported. The parents I spoke to felt powerless to stop their daughters from being manipulated by their life coaches or therapists, as long as their daughters were seeing their therapists, they couldn't do anything. Each was waiting for the light bulb moment.

Then in another article, the Daily Telegraph asked. The Daily Telegraph asked what made two seemingly happy young women from loving homes sever all contact with their families and friends, renounce their inherent inheritances and vanish into thin air. The journalist sought to discover how a self-styled development coach, digging for forgotten childhood memories, opened a door to catastrophe. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services proposed in our amendment, seeks to introduce an offence closely modelled on section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

A statutory defence is proposed to protect from liability therapists who believe they are acting in their client's best interests and whose behaviour is reasonable, with the onus being on the prosecution to disprove that defence to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt. If the defence is raised and evidence adduced to support it. The conservative government, when the Domestic Abuse Bill, now an act was debated, resisted criminalising this type of offence by quack psychotherapists in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill.

The government's argument was entirely based on the proposition that domestic abuse, which was the subject of that bill, should be seen as abuse in a family context involving what were termed connected people. The noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said that this about it at Report stage on the 10th of March 2021, the government recognised that noble Lords have raised an important issue and have made some spirited and cogent arguments in favour of doing something. Now, however, we still feel it is important to acknowledge that domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour, is a unique type of abuse underpinned by an emotional and affectional bond between the victim and the perpetrator, as well as a complex power dynamic.

The paid for and commercial nature of the psychotherapist client relationship represents a fundamentally different power dynamic from that of a domestic abuse, the noble Lord went on. That is why we do not believe it is appropriate to replicate the section 76 offence in other contexts such as this. However that might have been then. My Lords, this is not a domestic abuse bill, but a crime and policing bill. And it's a bill that introduces many new offences. This is surely the right bill to legislate for this offence.

As I reminded the House at Second Reading, the noble Lord Lord Kennedy of Southwark said this in winding up the debate for the Labour Party in relation to our amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill that he hoped, he said that the government would set a pathway to remedy this undeniably serious problem. The full passage from his speech reads as follows. This is a serious matter where people can be victims of some very dubious, unscrupulous and frankly, criminal practices. In responding to the debate, he said as the Labour Party spokesman, I hope the Minister is able to set out a pathway to remedy this undeniably serious problem so that patients who run the risk of becoming victims of further trauma or abuse are helped and supported.

Our ask is that the government take him at his word and legislate accordingly. My Lords, with a change of government and with the noble Lord Lord Kennedy of Southwark and the position he now enjoys, I hope the government will take the opportunity offered by this amendment to legislate and to fill a serious gap in the criminal law. France, Belgium and Luxembourg have legislation criminalising this behaviour. There is simply no reason not to follow their example here. In all the time I've been arguing for this kind of abuse by psychotherapists or counsellors to be a criminal offence.

No one has ever argued that it should not be so, nor that the offence should not be modelled on the section 76 offence. My Lords, the time has come to legislate this kind of abuse by people in a position of trust who cynically set out to ruin the lives of those who trust them by using falsehood in the guise of therapy, to abuse that trust for their own own gain, should now be held accountable for what must now be seen for what it is.

Criminal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behaviour. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
18:23
18:24
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
concerned about these quacks and tried, without success, to get previous governments to legislate previous governments to legislate for some years. More than ten years ago, I started work with Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Cabinet Office Minister in the government of our noble friend Lord Cameron of noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and with Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, as well as Parliamentary Minister, as well as Parliamentary Counsel and Ministry of Justice officials, with the support and encouragement of Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, the then Prime Minister, who had a constituency interest in the matter.

I spoke about those quacks at report on the Modern Slavery Bill in November 2014 and the Serious Crime Bill in February 2015. In the other place, and then again in your Lordships' House on the 2nd of March 2020, in the debate on the unregulated treatment of mental health, and then again on the 2nd of February 2021, with the noble Lord Lord Marks and the noble Lady Lady Jolly in the domestic Abuse Bill. Now, thanks to the noble Lord Lord Marks, we have another opportunity to make real progress.

Rather than having a general discussion without resolution. My Lords, we have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity, through intellectual impairment, disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who dishonestly take old and frail people's money, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted on them by others with malevolent intent, because their exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law. For over a decade, I have had in mind the young adult women whose experiences were brought to my attention by their parents and families.

In essence, they had been brainwashed or suborned by counsellors. They persuaded these young people to break off all contact with their families, infected them with false memories, and got them to pay fees for the so-called counselling. Some of these young women were well off and suggestible, but all of them, for no apparent reason, broke off all contact with their families in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, I successfully acted in a libel action for Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail, who had exposed the activities of the Unification Church, commonly known as the Moonies, in brainwashing young adults and breaking up families for nefarious financial, political and bogus religious reasons.

What the quacks I have in mind are doing is hideously reminiscent of the Moonies activities exposed by the Daily Mail over 45 years ago. As the noble Lord Lord Marks has just reminded us, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have laws to criminalise the behaviour of predatory charlatans who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. And, as he also reminded us, other countries require genuine counsellors to be registered as counsellors. It must be assumed that their laws do not conflict with the articles of the ECHR that protect the right to private life and family life, the right to freedom of expression and association, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

To take the French example, in that jurisdiction it is an offence punishable by imprisonment and very heavy fines to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor, or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness or infirmity, due to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender. It is also an offence to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency, resulting from serious or repeated pressure, or from techniques used to affect his judgement in order to induce the minor or other person to act, or to abstain from acting in a way seriously harmful to him for him.

Also read her this amendment is clearly different, but I believe as useful. One way of considering whether the proposed offence and defence in amendment 347 would work is to ask themselves the following questions. Would the offence be prosecutable in theory and in practice? Could each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real life example? Would the measure deal with the mischief that was identified, and would it catch no one else? The answer I suggest to those questions is yes.

How would it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence it need not do so. Would it allow the mentally capable, who want to give away their fortunes and leave their families to do so? Of course it would. Would it make sufficiently clear what was criminal behaviour and what was not? Would it comply with the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, I suggest it would. What effect would it have on religious freedom or freedom of expression or association? In my view, none at all.

Is the proposed defence just and workable? Yes it is. It places the burden of disproving the defence upon the prosecution. The victims of these bogus therapists have been waiting far too long for Parliament to help them. The amendment, I suggest, is humane and practical, and it has nothing whatever to do with party politics. Or, as I have recently been asked, has it anything to do with youngsters or their parents caught in the maelstrom of the current transsexual controversies? If the laws of France, Belgium and Luxembourg can protect the people that this amendment seeks to protect, the law of England can and ought to do so as well.

We have, if I may say so, had enough of sophistry and feeble opposition based on the lack of courage, decency and drafting licences. Too often we've heard it's the wrong day, it's the wrong bill. This is the wrong way to approach this particular problem. Amendment 347 or something like it should be added to the bill, and I urge the government to do that. If the government won't do that, we must return to this at report.
18:31
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I wish to express my sympathy with Lord Marks and Lord sympathy with Lord Marks and Lord Garnier amendment and hope my noble friend will be able to respond sympathetically, but also to open the door to a discussion with his health ministerial colleagues. Because I believe that hand in hand with the amendment that the noble Lords put forward today goes to the need for statutory regulation of the psychotherapy profession. At the moment, anyone can put psychotherapy behind their name or on a label, and there is absolutely no protection whatsoever.

My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Garnier noble and lonely Lord Garnier referred to the years he'd been involved in this. I'm afraid I go back to 2001 when, as a health Minister, I responded to an amendment in yet another NHS reorganisation bill in which Lord Alderdice proposed statutory regulation for psychotherapists, and we as a government agreed with the principle. And, my Lords, what then happened, Lord Alderdice led, were attempting to get agreement within the profession for statutory regulation.

We fell down essentially because there were so many different schools of thought within the psychotherapy ocean itself. It was impossible to get agreement and sadly it essentially died the death. My Lords, this in a debate again about five years ago in your Lordships House. In the it goes it goes back further. It we debated this amendment in the legislation and the noble Lord Lord Marks mentioned, but previously he'd had a debate in which the regulation of the profession was raised.

And at that point Lord Bethell, the then health Minister, said the government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in health and care, where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients. Legal avenues will and must be explored. However, he said more rules are not always the answer to every problem. Whilst statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users.

Now I was listening to the noble Lord Lord Marks and the noble and lonely Lord Garnier. I think they were pretty convincing in terms of why you actually need statutory regulation. Alongside the amendment to this bill. One of the problems is that there is a lack of hard research in this area. And my Lords, as the in 2017 goes back some years, the Brighton Therapy Partnership commented on this and said this is very unusual, that there's little research into the harm that prophylactic therapy can cause.

This is an unusual anomaly for a medical field. As in every other ER, research is abundant into both the efficacy and failure of all treatment options. So the point here, my Lords, is because there is a lack of evidence in terms of research. The fact is that the fact is little research has been done in this area. But anecdotally, we know that many thousands, particularly of young people, have been hugely damaged and their families by the quack therapists that the noble Lord Lord Marks has referred to.

So, my Lords, alongside this amendment, I hope that my noble friend would agree that there could perhaps be a discussion with health Ministers as well to look at statutory regulation, which I believe goes side by side with the proposals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being made tonight. I have not taken part in this bill before, but this is the reason bill before, but this is the reason I've come, because I have been closely connected with a child who closely connected with a child who was treated, grown up, who was who, who was treated by a so-called who was treated by a so-called psychotherapist, and she was removed from her family as a result.
18:35
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
removed from her family as a result. And these people do something which is almost inconceivable. They get inside people's minds and they teach them totally false memories. So they begin to imagine that their parents have abused them, that their parents have behaved in appalling ways which are entirely untrue. And they believe it. And as long as they go on with the so-called therapy, they are imprisoned by these wicked people who use it, of course, for two things, one for the money and the other for the control.

Now, I very much agree actually, with what has just been said, but I do not wish that to be yet another excuse for not accepting this amendment. There are far too many people in this country who are being destroyed for money and power by wicked people, and our law doesn't protect them. We have now discussed this so often, so long and so convincingly, that frankly, I want to beg the Minister, please, please don't be another Minister that finds a reason for not doing this.

Because if you do, if the noble Minister does, then what he does is to allow yet more young people to have their lives destroyed by some of the most evil people I've ever come across. Now, I think that it was worth my contribution, not just because I have personal and direct connection with someone who was in this condition, but also because I want to assure the House that there is no need to worry on a religious ground.

I think I'm known to have very strong religious views. I don't think this is going to cause problems for any legitimate religious organisation. May have some problems from some pretty illegitimate religious organisations like the Moonies, and indeed like the Scientologists. But the truth is, these people work on their own. They are individuals and they do this for money. I beg the Minister not to let this chance go to protect the most vulnerable young people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Marks has established a very real mischief here in Lord Garnier as well. And the other speakers. My concern is about the speakers. My concern is about the width of this amendment, and I think if it is going to be brought back before, either by the Minister back before, either by the Minister or by Lord Marks, it really does. To be does need to be more specific. To be does need to be more specific. It is very broad in the concepts it uses.

Concept of psychological harm, uses. Concept of psychological harm, unquote and quote, whether the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable does seem to me that the mischief here is people who provide psychotherapy or counselling services in bad faith, or do so dishonestly. And I think we need to have an amendment which more specifically addresses that mischief. The French legislation to mischief. The French legislation to which Lord Marks referred was much more specific and tailored than what we have here.
18:39
18:39
18:40
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames. I'm an old friend, Lord Garnier, for tabling this amendment. Controlling or coercive behaviour are currently legislated against if the offender is or has been in an intimate or familial relationship with the victim. This amendment uses the framework of section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 and applies it to offenders providing psycho therapeutic or counselling services. My Lords, I understand the reasoning behind the noble Lords Amendment, the original offences in place because being in an intimate or familial relationship puts both parties in a unique position or proximity.

They are positions of trust that carry a heightened risk of becoming exploitative, and thus legislation exists to recognise this. Psychotherapy and counselling services carry a similar risk. They put patients in extremely open and often vulnerable positions that entrust the provider with their confidence. Controlling or coercive behaviour becomes more likely given the power dynamics in these relationships, and I see no reason why, in principle, the law should not extend past protecting familial or intimate relationships and encompass certain intimate services. Whilst the conclusions backed up by recent research into mental health services, the University of Hertfordshire earlier this year found more than 750 incidents of violence and coercion by staff.

These include instances of verbal abuse, intentional neglect and even cases of physical violence. I do not intend to extrapolate from this study and make it seem as if it represents the entirety of our mental health services. I hope it does not. This is an underinvestigated area, and we do not yet know the scale of neglect in our services, but the more serious conclusions that can be drawn from it is that the fact that these of these 750 offences, only four official complaints were made.

Of these four complaints, a single one was upheld. Whether the reason for that was ignorance of reporting mechanisms, intimidation by staff, or the inexistence of the legal means, it represents a failure of the system. At the least, we should do as legislators is to promise to further examine the reasons behind those failings, something that I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can assure us the government will do. If it does conclude that there is a gap in the law, and that vulnerable people attending psychotherapy or counselling services are being controlled or coerced without the legal means to get justice.

I hope that the government will consider the amendment in question.
18:43
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Marks of Henley on Thames for Marks of Henley on Thames for returning to this issue, which he is persistent at, and I give him credit for that, and I welcome his support for these measures from the noble Lord Garnier. Noble and learned Lord Garnier. I'm grateful for the noble Lord Lieberman for sharing his personal experiences. I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for reminding us that even back as far as 2001, this issue has been raised and I'm grateful for my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark making a guest appearance in the speech of the noble Lord marks, which is, as ever, always helpful to see as I'm speaking for the government on this occasion.

I'm also grateful for the the constructive comments of the noble Lord Pannick and the noble Lady Baroness Gohir with regard to these issues. Now, the amendment, as we are clear, seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors, providing services to clients by replicating the coercive or controlling behaviour offence. Under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 215. Now I'm aware that the noble Lord has previously shared concerns and again he has repeated those concerns today about unscrupulous therapists taking advantage of their clients vulnerabilities by supplanting parents and families in the affections and minds of their clients for the purposes of turning them against their friends and family through this process called transference.

Now, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this is a serious issue, that it does deserve careful consideration and again, reflect on what the noble Lord Lord Deben has said in that regard. However, I think the question for the House is whether we need to legislate at this time, whether the argument is for legislation at this time, or whether there are other means to examine the outcomes that the noble Lord seeks. And I would suggest for the moment, for reasons I'll explain, that legislation would not necessarily, in this case, be the way forward.

Now, as the noble Lord has already said, the psychotherapist and counselling professions are not statutory regulated in the UK. That is a matter for which health and care professions are subject for statutory regulation remains one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and I'd just say to the House, now I understand. And this is for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, that there are no plans to regulate these professions at this time.

Now, the key question the noble Lord has put before the committee today is regarding section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 that relates to domestic abuse, and the context is domestic abuse. As such, the offence that he has sought today to introduce to replicate the offence only applies currently to those who are personally connected, as defined within that act. This does not include services provided by psychotherapists or counsellors, and I just want to sort of put to the noble Lord and all those who've contributed to the debate, that there is a paid for and commercial nature to the psychotherapist client relationship, which represents a fundamental, different power dynamic to those who are personally connected, which covers section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, whether that be intimate or familial relationship.

So I just suggest to the noble Lord that the section 76 offence, I just put the question to him, is it appropriate to replicate that offence in such settings without further consideration of the relationship issues that I've just drawn to the attention of the House to date? Now, as noted, psychotherapists and counsellors are not regulated by the government. There is no legal requirement for them to hold any specific training or qualifications, and there are no legally protected titles in place.

Extending provision for the offence to include psychotherapists and counsellors would continue, potentially to leave a legal gap because it would still be possible for individuals to rebrand themselves or define themselves by using alternative job titles, for example wellbeing practitioner or life coach. They could continue to practice in the same field as those that are included within the proposed definition that the amendment seeks to capture. Now, what does that mean in practice? Is the government satisfied that there are conditions for regulation of a profession to be met? Then the government can take action currently through secondary legislation under existing powers in the Health Act 1999, I say to the noble Lord Marks of Henley that the Department of Health and Social Care, on a UK basis, is taking forward a programme of reform in conjunction and discussion with devolved administrations on professional regulation.

Legislative framework for such healthcare professionals. Now, whilst I've indicated, and I say this again to all contributors to the committee debate, there are no current plans to introduce statutory regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors. The government will keep the professions subject to regulation under review. And I say to the noble Lord, and indeed to the noble Lord Deben and to my hon. Friend, noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and to the noble Lord Garnier, and learned noble, learned Lord Garnier, that the government would be happy to consider evidence following today's debate, that I would certainly forward and put to my noble friend, the Secretary of State for health, as part of that examination of regulation, because I think that is a productive way forward without many of the pitfalls that I've tried to describe that might occur if the legislation was accepted in the amendments proposed to the bill today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to criticise the intentions and motives of the noble intentions and motives of the noble Lord Minister, but what he has just said is very reminiscent of what I've heard on previous occasions I've heard on previous occasions from Ministers of my party. And and I'm sure the noble Lord, Lord hunt, I'm sure the noble Lord, Lord hunt, probably heard them from Ministers in the Tony Blair government back in the Tony Blair government back in 2001. I think we just need to ratchet up the urgency here.

Having further reviews is really a delightful departmental way of saying not today, thanks. Possibly not even tomorrow. We really do need to grip this. Calls for evidence are fine, so long as it is not a call for further delay or can't be bothered. I know from my own knowledge of the noble Lord, the Minister, that he doesn't belong to the can't be bothered department. So please, if my noble, my my good friend, the noble Lord Lord Marks and others who agree with him in relation to this amendment are to be persuaded that we're not just being brushed off.

We do need to see some real action, which could mean he or the Health Department ministry agreeing to meet with us and the noble Lord Pannick has got some views about the drafting and so forth, and other members of this House to have a very serious round table discussion early in the new year, because otherwise this will just dribble away as it did under the last government. I know he doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want that to happen, and. There is an argument, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is an argument, my Lords, that if members of the Conservative Party in government on several Party in government on several occasions, if members, including my noble friend of the Labour Party in previous governments and indeed previous governments and indeed myself, have used the same argument that maybe the same argument has that maybe the same argument has some validity, but I shall just I shall just put that to the noble Lord. Well. But I mean, I, I hear what he says, what I've, what I've tried to say to the committee today is that the Department of Health and Social Care is taking forward a programme of reform to professional regulation, legislative framework for healthcare professionals.

The responsibility for that area lies with the Department of Health. I speak in this bill in response to the amendment. On behalf of the Home Office. I'm arguing, and I have done, that legislation would not be the appropriate route forward, which may have a common thread with previous Ministers. But that is the argument I'm putting to the committee today. I am happy to reflect with colleagues as to whether or not I can ask my colleague Ministers to examine the issues that the noble Lord has put to the committee today, but ultimately it is for them to consider evidence provided.

Now, if the noble Lord thinks that's a brush off, I hope it isn't. But he can judge that in reflection of what I've said today, if he wishes to. And the noble Lord Marks has already shown his tenacity in raising this issue on several occasions, there is opportunity at report to do so. I am happy to try to facilitate for a Minister of health to examine the issues put before today, and I will draw to the attention of the appropriate Minister for health the debate that has occurred today.

I think that's reasonable, including the noble Lord Pannick remarks which test the assumptions of the proposed clause as well. But ultimately, I'm standing here on behalf of the government and the Home Office and speaking for all of these matters now. And the legislative route is not one that we consider appropriate. But I've said what I've said, and I'm very happy if the noble Lord wishes to draw his amendments for me to draw the debate and his comments, and those of other members to the attention of the appropriate health Minister, I've seen and heard the requests for a meeting from the noble and learned Lord Garnier.

I will draw that request to the attention of the appropriate health Minister. And if members remain unhappy after that process, then there are a number of options open to them which they are experienced parliamentarians, and no doubt they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will exercise. My Lords, first I should say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first I should say that I'm very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken in noble Lords who have spoken in favour of our amendment, movingly and I suggest persuasively. I'm also grateful to the noble Lady also grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Gohir for giving the added suggestion in relation to spiritual suggestion in relation to spiritual abuse. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower,
18:54
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
for the support from the opposition bench for our amendment. I'm bound bench for our amendment. I'm bound to say I have. I am disappointed by the position taken by the noble the position taken by the noble Lord Lord Hanson on behalf of the government, for a number of reasons. government, for a number of reasons. First, I have the greatest of respect for the way that the noble Lord has handled matters in this Lord has handled matters in this House since becoming a Minister, but I have never heard him make a brush off or an excuse quite as specious as the one that he just made when he said that the fact that the same excuse had been made by the conservative government as being made by him gave it validity.

My Lords, it does not. There is no validity to an excuse. And as the noble Lord Lord Deben said, the excuses really do have to stop now because we have a very real issue which we raise. And the next point is this, of course, I will consider the points made by the noble Lord Lord Pannick, who I count as a friend, as well as a very wise lawyer. And if he has doubts about the drafting, those are something we will discuss and no doubt can discuss with the government.

I also agree with the points made by those noble Lords who said that regulation is desperately needed for psychotherapists and therapists. And of course it is. But the fact that we need regulation does not mean that we do not also need the help of the criminal law. For those who are unscrupulous enough to use a quack, psychotherapy and false counselling to dupe people into parting with money and ruining their lives in the process. My Lords, it's all very well for the noble Lord, the Minister, to say he'll get the health department involved, that we heard from the conservative government.

And that's not enough. This is a Crime and Policing Bill which introduces new offences and the protection of victims and vulnerable people, and the visiting of penalties upon unscrupulous and criminal behaviour is what the criminal law is and ought to be about. And the time has come, I think, to deal with it. We've heard about the noble Lord Lord Alderdice approach to regulation, and he's worked on that for many years. He wanted to be here this evening, but I'm afraid he was stuck in traffic in South Oxfordshire, something that happens to many of us, even in South Oxfordshire.

But Lord Alderdice has also supported the proposition that this behaviour ought to be criminal and supports it now. And I suggest the government needs to take that very seriously indeed. I don't accept that the wording of the offence is so broad that it doesn't penalise the correct behaviour the way that it is phrased shows that subclause one a that a person commits an offence if A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person, providing or purporting to provide, including counselling services.

So the point taken by Lord Hanson that there may be other people who need regulating, it doesn't count because the number of counsellors that he describes would all be caught by this. This should not now be the subject for an excuse. It is a time for action. We do need to legislate now. I do would like to meet the noble Lord, the Minister, and of course Lord Pannick and anybody else who is interested to come along. And noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier, who's also co-signed this amendment, to whom I'm very grateful, has worked on this for years.

Says the noble and noble Lord Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. If we can have a meeting and work out between now and report how to get the drafting right and to produce a criminal offence, that will work and will outlaw this behaviour, then that is something that I would very much like to do, and I will have achieved the end that I seek. And I do invite the Lord, the noble Lord, the Minister and as Lord Deben put it, begged the noble Lord Minister to take this seriously and end this scourge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

once for all. With this crime and policing bill. Yeah, yeah. Very good. With that said, that's it for this. At this stage I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's it for this. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, point. Is it your Lordship's pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 348 after clause 109, amendment 348, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 109, amendment 348, Baroness Smith of Malvern mice. I rise to speak to amendment 348 and 349 that are in my name, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Hendy for adding their names. These amendments seek to tackle one of the most pressing issues in our society gender based violence and harassment, with a clear focus on workplaces. As I open this debate, I look forward to hearing
19:00
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
contributions from across the House on how we can strengthen protections for workers and make protections for workers and make our workplaces truly safe. our workplaces truly safe. Amendments 348 and 349 establish a health and safety framework to address violence against women and address violence against women and girls in the workplace and create a new duty on employers to prevent violence and harassment. By amending section two of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This is not the first time I've brought this proposal before your Lordships.

During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we had a constructive debate on the proposal. Since then, support has grown both inside and outside Parliament. Just last month, the End Not Defend campaign held an event here in Parliament attended by peers and members of the Other place. Survivors shared harrowing experiences of how the law is failing them. Trade unions, specialist organisations and survivors themselves are calling for action. Their courage in sharing their experiences demands a response from us.

This bill already introduces a new offence to protect retail workers a welcome step. But why stop there? Violence and harassment affect workers across all sectors. And if we're serious about halving violence against women and girls within the next decade, as His Majesty's Government has pledged, we need a cross-departmental approach that moves beyond a sole focus on criminalisation to prevention and tackling the root causes. Leveraging health and safety law is one way to achieve this. It makes vawg prevention everybody's business.

These amendments were co-written with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and rights of women organisations with decades of experience in supporting victims. The amendment aims are also supported by several workers unions and current legislation falls short. The Worker Protection Act 2023 introduced a preventative duty on sexual harassment, but in practice enforcement only occurs after harm has happened. The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen this requirement when it introduces protections around third party harassment. However, enforcement can only occur after sexual harassment has been experienced, limiting its preventative function.

It also excludes other forms of violence against women and girls in the workplace, such as other forms of harassment and all forms of violence, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse. The UK ratified ILO convention 190, which requires a gender responsive approach to workplace safety. Yet this obligation. Recent cases show this urgency the tragic murder of Gracie Spinks by a colleague who stalked her. Despite repeated reports, NHS female surgeons reporting harassment and even rape in operating theatres, described as surgeries open secret Royal Artillery gunner Jess Lee Beck, who took her own life after relentless harassment by her superior, reports of sexual assault and rape at Harrods, the CBI, BBC and McDonald's.

The Harrods case was not a failure of individual courage. It was a failure of structural responsibility. Multiple institutions had sight of risk, but none had duty to prevent it. Harrods looked like a modern employer, but it functioned as a closed environment in which power went unchecked and young women were left unprotected. These amendments would have required the risk assessments that never happened. Survivors of farhad's abuse, represented by no one above, say the same thing again and again. No one stopped him.

Legislators must ensure that no workplace in the UK can ever operate without level of impunity again, where accountability is optional, exploitation becomes operational. The Harrods Redress scheme shows exactly why voluntary arrangements cannot substitute for enforceable duties on employers, and these are not isolated incidents. Rights of women report that 56% of calls to its advice line involve harassment or violence from colleagues, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust found women are eight times more likely than men to experience sexual misconduct at work, yet there's no government data collection and no reporting requirement, and outdated attitudes persist that valg is a private matter.

I'd like I'd like to illustrate to the House the lack of regulation for valg in the workplace and why these amendments are necessary. The Equality Act addresses sexual harassment as discrimination, but excludes other forms of valve, leaving significant safety issues, and regulated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers can adopt domestic abuse policies voluntarily, as recommended by the in guidance to employers on domestic abuse, although the Welsh version is actually over a decade old. However, much of the currently available guidance assumes domestic abuse occurs outside the workplace and outside the remit of the employers liability, and this does not align with the statutory guidance to employers in the Domestic Abuse Act 2010, which states that employers should consider the impact of domestic abuse on their employees as part of their duty of care under health and safety law, as regulated by the Health and Safety Executive.

But despite the growing evidence that gender based violence and harassment harm workers health and safety, the Health and Safety Executive does not recognise gender based violence as a workplace hazard. In its evidence to the Women's Equality Select Committee 2018 Inquiry on Sexual Harassment, the Health and Safety Executive stated clearly that it has a policy of not applying the Health and Safety at Work Act when they deem other agencies or regulators to have more specific responsibilities. The Health and Safety Executive is currently advising workers to report harassment to bodies that lack enforcement powers.

This must change, and harassment and violence in the workplace should be recognised as a health and safety at work matter. Health and safety frameworks provide a structured, enforceable approach, updating them to include valg ensures employers have a positive duty to prevent harm, not just to respond after an incident and as with existing health and safety duties, this would be proportionate. These amendments are practical, scalable. They require risk assessment, clear policies, training and confidential reporting mechanisms, all proportionate to the size and risk profile of the workplace and consistent with the existing health and safety frameworks.

My Lords Amendments 348 and 349 prioritise prevention and victim protection. They reflect expert advice and growing public demand. They align with the government's own commitment to halving violence against women and girls within the next decade, and tomorrow the strategy will be published, the Safeguarding Minister in the Other place said yesterday. The strategy has to be for everybody. It has to be for employers as well. It has to be for businesses, charities, everybody in society. And I hope that these amendments are viewed as one way to make that vision a reality.

My Lords, we know what happens when accountability is optional. We have seen it in shops, in hospitals, in the armed forces, and we owe it to those who have spoken up and to those who still feel unable to to act. I look forward to the Minister's response and hope His Majesty's Government will consider these arguments. As the Crime and Policing Bill progresses through this House, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 109. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. Happy once again to add my name to these two amendments by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to these two amendments by. The noble Baroness. Because we had exactly the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because we had exactly the same debate, or a very similar debate on the 21st of May this year during the 21st of May this year during the Employment Rights Act and the noble Lady, the Baroness, followed up with a letter to the then Minister, Baroness Jones on the
19:09
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
11th of July, laying out the case very clearly. My Lords, this very clearly. My Lords, this government has a laudable intention of trying to reduce violence against women and girls by one half, against women and girls by one half, by 50%. My Lords, there is a strange congruence between that ambition and the fact that I wonder if noble Lords are aware during an if noble Lords are aware during an average year, if you are fortunate enough to be employed, how much time during a year do you actually spend in the workplace? It's actually 52%.

So over half of your time during a year for an average employee is actually spent in and around the workplace. So to exclude the workplace from close scrutiny and oversight when one is putting together a comprehensive strategy to try and reduce violence against women and girls would seem somewhat of an oversight. So, my Lords, what the noble Baroness is, is suggesting in these two amendments seems to me not only eminently sensible, but I do feel that without looking at this very carefully and ensuring that in some way, shape or form, it is included effectively within the strategy.

The strategy is, from the start, fundamentally flawed. My Lords, the safety, the Health and Safety at Work Act, which is often cited by governments of whatever persuasion as being the bedrock for trying to ensure rights in the workplace, is now exactly 51 years old, and the many other acts and regulations which the government, I'm sure will and has on previous occasions reeled out. Are put on the statute book at various stages within the last 51 years.

But my Lord, during the last 51 years, for better or for worse, I think for worse, the situation that that women and girls in particular, but also actually men in the workplace has fundamentally changed and it has changed for the worse. And the regulations and the legislation have not kept up with this. And there is clearly an imbalance, and one has to look at the range of organisations which have suffered quite a lot of damage to their reputations as a result of really not looking at and trying to put in place both regulations and rules, but also instilling a effectively a culture, primarily through leadership, to ensure that the sort of behaviour that we're talking about and trying to stop is called out and without, you know, I could go through an exhaustive list, but if you look at the embarrassment that various police forces have have had to endure in the last few years, if you look at the the embarrassment that the Church of England has had to face and is still facing an institution which finds it extraordinarily difficult not only to acknowledge the existence of of that sort of behaviour within its ranks, but has the strange anomaly that it is an organisation, part of whose purpose in life is to forgive.

But it is not enough to forgive things going wrong if you are not actually prioritising the needs of those who are being wronged. And that is unfortunately the case in the Church of England. And of course, as is very well known throughout the world by the Roman Catholic Church, the military is is also an embarrassing example to have lost a First Sea Lord through impropriety at work is not exactly a chart. An example of stellar leadership, and it does make one wonder how it was possible for an individual to reach that level of rank throughout their career, with fundamental and comprehensive reviews in theory and training right the way through their career to arrive at the pinnacle of their military profession and then to be found publicly very wanting.

So clearly there was something fundamentally wrong with the culture there. We have also had Cabinet Ministers who have had to resign on the basis of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, particularly harassment and bullying. So, my Lords, this is a problem that that is that is endemic and to ignore it is is simply not acceptable in the answer that the the Minister gave the noble Lord Leong at the debate on the 21st of May, I hope and expect that the the Minister's reply that we will hear this evening is not a carbon copy of that, because essentially it was a list of all of the various regulations and and legislation, which in theory is meant to enable one to address and stop this.

But, my Lords, it clearly isn't working. And to try and defend it when it clearly isn't working does make one feel that perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, if he does do that, is perhaps, unfortunately, taking King Canute as a role model, because that is simply not acceptable. In fact, when I intervened during that debate and suggested to Lord Leon that perhaps all of these regulations were not doing precisely what they were designed to do, he said that it was time for some black box thinking, and we should try and identify organisations that are examples of where it was actually doing a good job and had instituted a culture and rules that actually were addressing this properly, and that we could look at those as an example of, of how to do it.

My Lords, I think that is that is essentially an admission of failure. If one has to find, you know, with a with a pin prick. Examples of good practice across the country, when 52% of employees are spent, you know, 52% of one's time is spent in the workplace. And it's that difficult to find examples of good practice. It suggests that either bad practice or non-existent practice is, is is prevalent. So, my Lords, for all those reasons, I am hoping and anticipating without a huge amount of optimism, that we will have a slightly different response from the Minister this evening.
19:16
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool and and in particular to support the Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, not least because my noble friend Lord Hendy co-signed noble friend Lord Hendy co-signed the amendment and is sadly not able to to be in the country this evening to for anyone to imagine or suggest that the job of the Health and Safety Executive should be limited to heavy machinery inspection or physical infrastructure as opposed to social infrastructure.

And for any if anybody still imagines that they're not just living in the last century, that arguably living in the one before that, and to and and for the Health and Safety Executive to to look at its role in such a limited way is is also incredibly gendered. So I hope that my noble friend, the Minister, will look favourably on the intention of these amendments, because they sit so well and comfortably with other measures that the government is attempting.

The noble Baroness put it very well that it it's essential for the functioning of the violence against women and girls strategy. Last night, during the course of the Second Reading on the On the Victims and Courts Act, it was it was wonderful to hear another noble friend and Minister, Lady Levitt, talk about further work and and an expanded regime on allowing whistleblowing and and busting open non non-disclosure agreements that cover up illegal activity. And that often means violence against women at work and what's being proposed here by the noble Baroness Miller sits so comfortably in that that I can't believe that my noble friend, the Minister, will think anything different, not least as a few minutes ago he spoke so passionately about protecting emergency workers when when they have to go into into difficult and dangerous settings that they should be protected from, even from, even from abuse, let alone from violence and, and, and and more serious criminality.

And wouldn't it be odd, my Lords, wouldn't it be odd if there were no duty on emergency workers, employers to to look at risk, to look at adequate training, to look at the culture in the workplace and and what measures might be taken within teams and with training for those same emergency workers. So this is about joined up thinking and coming up with a violence against women and girls strategy that the whole committee and all parties can, can get behind, as was suggested by the noble Lady.

Now I've so I feeling optimistic, I hope, about my noble friend. The Minister's reply I would say also to to committee colleagues on the opposition frontbench. There are inevitable concerns about any additional burden on employers. I'm seeing nods that that that suggest that my suspicions are are correct. But these duties can be as appropriate. And if noble Lords and committee members have concerns about the precise drafting of the amendments once more, they can be dealt with before Report stage.

But these duties will be to to prepare revise assessments that are appropriate for a particular business. And of course, businesses are so different and workplace settings are so different, including very vulnerable settings and secluded, secluded settings including on visits including travel, including in people's homes and so on. This only need be strategies and training as appropriate. These need not be an undue burden on good employers of good faith who have many, many women workers. In particular, though I would like to see all protected.

So I hope that the entire committee can get behind supporting the noble Lady. And I'm delighted to see the first ever General Secretary of the TUC looking as if she might be due to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speak after me. If I if I may, could I could I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I if I may, could I could I begin by, first of all, by seeking clarification for the Nobel laureate L Russell of Liverpool on laureate L Russell of Liverpool on his sums? Now, I don't do sums either, but if I heard him correctly, he said that a worker correctly, he said that a worker spends 50% of his life at work. Well, if that's what I heard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correctly, that's 84 hours a week. Is the. Person who is fortunate enough to be employed, spends, on average 52% of a year, one year in and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around the workplace. I will need to go and back later

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will need to go and back later and do my own sums. That still seems to me a little bit excessive, but nevertheless, I'm not opposed but nevertheless, I'm not opposed to this new clause. And I agree the thrust of it, and I think that's important. But my concern is turning a broad legal duty, which these two clauses suggest into concrete, repeatable workplace practice. I think there's some practical difficulties, and they include, first of all, you get hidden and underreported incidents.

We all know that victims often don't report harassment or stalking,
19:22
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
and there's no incident logs which might under underrate the risk. And the risk can come from colleagues, the risk can come from colleagues, managers, contractors, clients, customers or the public, including online, and making responsibility and control much harder to map. And that might just put a simply that might just put a simply impossible obligation on employers. And it could impose a very heavy burden on small employers who who burden on small employers who who will probably not have an HR or personnel department and or the security expertise to assess all the potential risks.

And designing gender responsive measures into practical, proportionate steps seems to me to be a very difficult thing to do, and would require a lot of careful tailoring to deal with different people and roles, and it may be beyond the capability of many employers, particularly small ones. Now, I know that the noble Lady Baroness May has looked at the advice already published, and I think they do produce detailed guidance on managing work related stress and preventing work related violence. And that includes policies including includes information on creating policies to address unacceptable behaviour.

Perhaps that voluntary advice they give could be expanded to deal with the elements which are in the core of these new clauses. I also looked at what echoes do, and this is what Acas say on their website. Vicarious liability is when an employer could be held responsible if one of their workers discriminates against someone. The Law Equality Act 2010 says a worker and an employer should could both be held responsible if the discrimination happens in the course of employment. This means something that's linked to work.

This could be at work or outside the workplace, for example in a work party or through social media that's linked to work now. Okay, my Lords, that's what Acas say about discrimination. But I simply wonder whether or not the better course of action here might not be, not by passing this new clause into law, but by getting the HSC and ACRs to take the thrust of the suggestions into it and design new guidance which delivers what the the noble Lady and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, want.

The other point I'd like to make is he's just left the chamber. When I saw the noble Lord Lord Stevens or Earl Peel here, I assume he was going to speak on this matter, and if he was to speak in it, he'd probably say, please do not give any more powers to the Health and Safety Executive because he was a victim of one of the excessive criminal trials when he was commissioner of the met, one of his officers was pursuing a burglar. The burglar ran onto the roof of the factory.

The police officer chased him and fell through a skylight. The police officer was seriously injured. The Health and Safety Executive took the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to court for failing to provide a safe working environment for the officer and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I recall him saying I stood in number one court at the Old Bailey. The court, which heard had the trials of murderers and serious criminals and and traitors, and accused by the Health and Safety Executive, and not taking enough care of my workers.

When my lawyer asked the chaplain, the Health and Safety Executive, what should the officer have done? The Health and Safety Executive person said, well, he should have stopped. He should have sent for a cherry picker and scaffolding to make sure it was safe, the noble Lord said. I looked at the jury. The jury looked at the face of this idiot, and within minutes I was cleared because that a sensible jury knew that was a ridiculous thing to do. And that's the only danger of giving these powers to an organisation like the Health and Safety Executive.

They may use them, the bulk of them, safely most of the time, but on occasions you get silly decisions, I should say, in conclusions, my Lords, that that case of the Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens at Kirkwhelpington, is a very good reason why we should keep juries and not a single judge. So, my Lords, as I say, I foresee difficulties for putting this into law. But I do hope there's a solution can be found whereby the Health and Safety Executive or Acast or others can pursue the contents of the new clauses without a recourse to legislation.
19:26
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords and I have some serious reservations about amendments three, four, eight and the related three four, nine. I spoke at length against them when the same amendment was raised at the Employment Rights Bill, and I'm not going to repeat everything I said going to repeat everything I said there. I was interested in the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti talking about maybe we could look at drafting, because one of my problems is the wording of this repeated amendment, which I think is all over the place, quite dangerous, very broad, and could get us into all sorts of unintended trouble.

So let me illustrate. I thought that the the noble Lady Baroness Smith of Llanfaes spoke passionately and actually excellently about some of the concerns there are about concerns, the real life problems of sexual harassment at work. And many of us will recognise that. But as I say, I have concerns about the language of this particular amendment. When we talk about a legal mandate for employers to introduce proactive and preventative measures to protect workers from psychological and emotional abuse, we already heard from the noble Lord Lord Pannick psychological abuse, emotional abuse, very broad and what the nature of proactive and preventative measures might be to stop.

What is very hard to define, it would seem to me, could be a real overreach, could be quite coercive, potentially could be quite manipulative. But I'm particularly nervous about the use of the gender responsive approach that's advocated, particularly in relation to training, and which we're told in the wording of the amendment. By the way, a gender responsive approach means taking into account the various needs, interests and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls. If I could just state that women and girls are not a subset of gender identities, whatever those gender identities are, I think that's both insulting.

On the one hand, gender identities are at the very least contentious. And I think that this language confusion for me drags this amendment into a potential political minefield here, because I am actually familiar with the way that gender responsive approaches are being used in the workplace at the present time to undermine women and girls. I was fortunate enough to today to have had a meeting here in Parliament with the Darlington Nurses Union. The Darlington nurses are in dispute with their NHS employer because they felt sexually unsafe in their nurses changing room.

They're single sex nurses changing room, which, by the way, was fought for as part of health and safety at work in the past and they have a place that they can get changed and they felt unsafe when a gender inclusive policy allowed a male who identifies as a woman to use their space. And this has led to all sorts of problems in relation to what safety at work is. They felt as though there was a degree of sexual harassment going on and so forth, and they also talked about.

And so I'm just pointing out that this is like a difficult area. Can we at least acknowledge it? They talked about one of their members, Jennifer Mellor, who's a 40 year old NHS nurse who has had 12 years of unblemished service in a hospital in Surrey. And I thought it was worth using this illustration because I know the noble Lord, the Minister was very passionate earlier and rightly so, about those people who have to suffer, emergency workers who have to suffer racial abuse.

And Jennifer Muller's story is important because she's a black nurse who is dealing with a patient who happened to be a convicted male paedophile in a hospital in Surrey. Nurse Mel phoned the neurologist and referred to this. This patient as he Mr. While talking to the urologist on the phone, the patient became very aggressive, started shouting racist abuse, used the most vile racial slurs, lunged at nurse Jennifer Muller and that was a terrible thing to happen.

You would have expected her employers would have protected her from that. It was a racial. It was racial in that instance. But a female frontline worker, what actually happened was course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the noble Lady Baroness Fox to some extent is is repeating some to some extent is is repeating some of the perfectly sensible points that she made in the debate earlier that she made in the debate earlier in the year. Could I just point out that at Committee stage what these are, are probing amendments? No are, are probing amendments? No more, no less. It is accepted from the go go that they could be improved. And what I think would be improved.

And what I think would be helpful for the committee is not a long list of the things that are wrong with it. We accept that there may be some things that are wrong with it, but what would be really, really helpful from the noble Lady, the Baroness is some suggestions. If she is unhappy with the wording, as what she might suggest should be put in its place. If, as I think is the case, she is acknowledging that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Point that I was going on to make, because I think that's a fair comment. The point that I was going to make was that she was suspended to make was that she was suspended for misgendering, using a gender inclusive policy similar to that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advocated in this amendment. And I know. Yeah. No. So I suggested. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Who's sitting down? Right. I suggested then that I wasn't happy with the wording of this amendment. It's just simply been repeated. So I did make a speech which I thought was reasonable at the time. This is actually not the same speech, but I'm raising some of the some of the issues because I would say, which is why I urgently earlier pointed out, why would you use that approach to protecting women and girls when women in the workplace are at present actually being the victims of some of these gender related policies? Therefore, if the amendment comes back as a more straightforward, narrowly defined sexual harassment at work, then I would be much more interested in hearing from it.

But the amendment is repeated rather than just my speech. It is exactly the same wording that I objected to before. No account has been taken of any of the criticisms made then at committee at probing stage. So I think I can reasonably say I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like us all to not repeat ourselves, including with this amendment. Please sit down. I just wanted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please sit down. I just wanted to come back really briefly in terms of the language, in terms of gender responsive approach that gender responsive approach that isn't gender inclusive approach. It isn't gender inclusive approach. It is based on the ILO convention that our government has ratified, along with the rest of the global with the rest of the global community. And it is in relation to the fact that more women do face misconduct at work compared to men, and that is what it is regarding.

So I just wanted to clarify the language there. But I do take take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those those points. Thank you, my Lords. I want. To add my support to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To add my support to these probing amendments and to thank the noble Lady, Baroness Smith, for her noble Lady, Baroness Smith, for her work on this issue. I strongly welcome the government's promise to welcome the government's promise to launch the largest crackdown in history to reduce violence against history to reduce violence against women and girls. While, of course, the misery of experiencing violence and harassment is not exclusive to women, as surveys from the Tse and others have shown, overwhelmingly it is women who suffer this abuse.

I also welcome the government's recognition that we need a whole system approach, which places prevention and survivors at its heart. Every part, as we've heard
19:35
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
already, every part of society has to step up if we're going to achieve the goal of every woman achieve the goal of every woman feeling safe everywhere. And that must include action to make the must include action to make the workplace a place of safety for women. To now, I would have hoped women. To now, I would have hoped that we have moved on from the notion that violence against women notion that violence against women is somehow a private or domestic matter.

But let's take one practical example. Take the reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous Occurrences regulations. This is the UK's health and safety law that requires employers to report specific, serious work related incidents, like fatalities and major injuries to the Health and Safety Executive. Now, these reports help the HSC track risks and prevent future harm, making it a vital legal duty to maintain workplace safety and accountability. But the if you look at it today, the HSC website explicitly states that while acts of violence to a person at work that result in death or a major injury are reportable, a physical injury inflicted on one employee by another during a dispute about a so-called personal matter, or an employee at work injured by a relative, or a friend who visits them at work about a domestic matter is not reportable, so the HSC has no responsibility to track violence against women.

That happens in the workplace, which is deemed to be a personal or domestic matter. I find that pretty shocking. You have to question why women's experience of violence at work is disregarded in this way. Likewise, as we've also heard, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has responsibility for the duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment. But it is open and public that it will only investigate what it describes as strategic cases, as they simply don't have adequate resources to deliver comprehensive information.

Surely health and safety inspectors who do have the powers, who have the ability to go into workplaces, surely they have a role to play in enforcing prevention of sexual harassment. Now the UK has fallen far behind the Ilo's recommended standard for the ratio of labour inspectors to the size of workforce. In effect, the safety and welfare of British workers has been deprioritised over the last decade and more compared to other countries. But it seems that the safety and welfare of women workers has been deprioritized even more.

There is an opportunity for an update and a reset. The new Fair Work Agency and boosting the number of labour inspectors will be vital. But we must get the health and safety framework right too, for the sake of women workers. I hope the Minister will talk to other colleagues for sure, but give careful consideration to these amendments before us.
19:39
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
Well done Frances. >> Well done Frances. >> The objective of amendment 348, who would not support the objective who would not support the objective of preventing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace? I suspect that the main argument against amendment three, four, eight will be the burden that this will impose on employers, particularly small employers, and Lord Blencathra make that point very eloquently. Can can I just briefly identify one reason why it is very much in the interests of the employer themselves to have these duties, and that is because if there is illegal violence and harassment in the workplace, which causes as it will damage to the victim, she and it normally will be a she will be looking for remedies.

And if she's looking for remedies, the person against whom she is most likely to be advised to sue is not the rogue other employee. It is the employer, and the employer is particularly vulnerable to such a civil claim. If the employer has not, as required by amendment three four, eight, which no doubt can be improved in its drafting if the employer has not conducted any sort of assessment to identify potential risks, has not implemented policies and procedures to eliminate those risks, and in particular has not provided at least basic training to all employees on the importance of these matters.

So, yes, this will impose a burden on employers, particularly small employers. But it is very, very much in their interest to protect themselves against legal liability. And of course, also to prevent to deter such action taking place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these amendments ask employers not just to react when something goes wrong, but to look something goes wrong, but to look ahead, identify the risks and take sensible steps to prevent harm sensible steps to prevent harm before it happens. That is especially important for women and for those in insecure or public facing roles, who we know are more likely to be targeted and less likely to be targeted and less likely to feel safe reporting what's happened to them.

The
19:42
19:43
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness Baroness May for her Baroness Baroness May for her thoughtful amendments and her speech when moving this group, which seeks to place prevention of illegal violence and harassment in the workplace on a clear statutory footing, and to expand the duties of the Health and Safety Executive accordingly. I think it's clear from the debate we've just had that across your Lordships' House. We all take violence against women and girls extremely seriously, whether that violence occurs at home, on the street, online or in the workplace, we know that gender based violence remains alarmingly prevalent.

Data for the year ending March 2024 shows that 6% of women aged 16 and over experienced domestic abuse, 4% experienced sexual assault, and 4% experienced stalking. These amendments, as we've heard, focus on violence at work in the employment context, sexual harassment at work is far from uncommon. A recent study by UCL found that nearly 1 in 7 UK workers encountered workplace abuse in the past year, with women reporting significantly higher levels of harassment and assault. Those figures remind us that work, of course, must be a place of safety, a place of dignity and a place of respect for all employees, and I'm very sympathetic to the motivation behind these amendments, which impose a duty on employers, as we've heard, to put in place, quote, proactive and preventative measures, and to require, amongst other things, employers to train staff in, in various matters.

There are plainly important concepts, but I do worry about some of of the drafting of of these amendments, proactive and preventative measures is defined, is not defined in the amendment. How far do those proactive and preventative measures go? What do they mean? And I do worry about the extra layer of red tape that such proposals may saddle already struggling businesses with. And the noble Baroness Baroness Chakrabarti read my mind in that respect. We've recently spent in this House a lot of time on the Employment Rights Bill.

I don't intend to relitigate any of those arguments. Lordships will be glad to hear, but the view of these benches has plainly been that that Bill is placed ever greater regulation on business. And I believe that piling further duties on smaller businesses in particular, would be hugely difficult. And I worry that the additional duties as drafted are simply too general and too vague as they stand. I do make one specific observation on the new subsection three that states that the person's workplace includes hybrid work environments, meaning that the duty could apply in a person's home.

And I do question whether an employer should be held responsible for violence that an employee experiences in their own in their home. It does not seem to me to be reasonable. It is also worth placing these proposals in the wider context of national efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, and the government has committed to halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. They've promised new police units focussed on rape and sexual offences. They've expanded domestic protection orders and all that forms part of a broader mission.

And we we await a further statement tomorrow. I believe in the other place on the violence against women and girls strategy. My Lords, unfortunately, the government's position in their own Sentencing Bill raises serious questions about the wider issue in that bill. Despite repeated amendments in both houses, the government has resisted exempting sexual assault and related offences from the presumption in favour of suspended sentences that we believe is a real concern for victims and survivors, who rightly expect sentences for harmful and violent conduct to reflect the gravity of the offence and to protect them from further harm.

So, in conclusion, my Lords, we understand the intention behind the amendments before us, particularly the focus on prevention in the workplace. And I do hope that the Minister will respond to these points and also set out how the government intends to ensure that workplace protections sit within a broader, effective strategy for tackling gender based violence in all its forms.
19:48
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Smith of Llanfaes for explaining the amendments and for explaining the amendments and for tabling them today, and I'm grateful for the support that was grateful for the support that was given to her from my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, from the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, from my noble friend Baroness from my noble friend Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway, and for the comments of the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel from the front bench, the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord Blencathra.

I just say at the beginning that the concerns that the government has about the amendment are not reflective of the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lord Cameron, the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, the noble Lady Baroness Fox, and the noble Lord Blencathra. They've made points which are valid, but they're not ones which I'm going to deploy in the arguments against the debate that has been had today. And I'm grateful also for the noble Lord Pannick comments in relation to the amendments.

I just want to start by saying to the noble Lady that tomorrow, as is recognised, we do have the violence against women and girls strategy. It is ambitious. It does set a target to reduce violence against women and girls per se, over a ten year period, and I'm grateful to my noble friend for her endorsement of that approach. But I just say to the House today, and I hope I don't disappoint the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, in deploying some of the arguments, because I wasn't party to the arguments in previous bills, but I just want to explain where the government is coming from in relation to the points that the noble Lady has made, because it is important that we do reduce violence against women and girls in the workplace, as well as in a domestic or public setting.

That is absolutely right. But I would argue today, and this may reflect some of the arguments that the noble Lord may have heard before. But I would argue today that under existing health and safety at work legislation, the 1974 act and its related secondary legislation, employers have a clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. They are required under legislation from 1974, which is 51 years ago, was passed by a previous Labour government, but is still relevant today to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce those risks.

The 1974 act, along with a range of related regulations, further mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risks of workplace violence. And as part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, again a Labour Government measure of some 26 years ago requires employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and to take suitable action to reduce or eliminate those risks. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities are both responsible for enforcing the 74 act to implement proactive and reactive measures to ensure employers are complying with their duties.

And my noble friend from her previous life experience will be aware of that. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks, implement appropriate controls to protect their workforce and indeed anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence. There is also a Health and Safety Executive published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. I've heard what my noble friend has said today, but the amendment 349, in the name of the noble Lady would require the HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focussed on illegal violence and harassment in the workplace.

As I've set out, employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations to manage such risks, including violence and aggression. And although workplace harassment could be addressed under the 74 act, as has been mentioned, the DHSC does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation applies. Harassment offences in the workplace are covered under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, again passed by my predecessors in this office, and additionally the Equality and Human Rights Commission can act under the Equality Act 2010, again passed by my predecessors in my party, in office, and recently, in October, 24 amendments to the Equality Act 2010, which came into force in October 24th, require employers to take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, and this provision is enforced by the EA.

And again in the Vogue strategy published tomorrow, about which I'm not able to divulge every aspect. So far. There are measures on stalking, there are measures on domestic violence protection orders. There's a whole range of things tomorrow, including measures included in this bill to date. So I would say to the noble Baroness that there is a legal framework for addressing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace, which I would argue is both robust and comprehensive. The government remains committed to raising awareness of this issue, and the government wants to examine, as it is doing now, how it applies the violence against women and girls strategy to reduce violence against women and girls across the piece.

But I would say to the noble Lady today that if she would withdraw those amendments, I hope the defence have put is is not to in a moment, in a moment. Just let me finish the sentence and I'll certainly give way. I just asked the noble Lady today to withdraw the amendments today, because the proposals that we've put in the strategy tomorrow and the outlining that I've given, I hope, of the performance of the Health and Safety Executive is sufficient to show that we do take this issue seriously, and the government is not going to tolerate violence in the workplace.

But I'll certainly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister in relation to what we have heard in this to what we have heard in this debate. It is very clear that the status quo isn't working. So what status quo isn't working. So what does the Minister propose to for the government to actually do to the government to actually do to improve this? As we have heard, you have listed these all of these pieces of legislation that is clearly not working because so many women are still facing these issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the workplace. Grateful. I hope I can give the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. I hope I can give the noble Lady the assurance. My right hon. Friend Jess Phillips is the hon. Friend Jess Phillips is the Minister directly responsible for the Violence against Women and Girls strategy, although I obviously account to this House for that. She has a history of ensuring that we focus on reduction of that we focus on reduction of violence against women and girls. The strategy she publishes tomorrow is a strategy across the piece, not just for us.

As we've discussed today, domestic violence against women and girls, or violence against women and girls in a more public place. It is a comprehensive strategy. I hope the noble Lady will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt that she would share, and I am speaking for the government in expressing that view. She would share the view to reduce and eliminate domestic violence in a workplace setting, or violence in a workplace setting against women and girls. And therefore, I would hope that the noble Lady can withdraw the amendments today.

Examine in detail the strategy that's going to be published tomorrow. I will make sure that my noble friend right hon. Friend Jess Phillips sees the debate that's been had today and looks at the points that have been made across the piece from noble Lords and ladies, in relation to how the Health and Safety Executive is operating, particularly on the personal basis that has been discussed today as well. But I would hope with those reassurances that the noble Lady will know that this government is committed to taking action to reduce women and girls violence by half over a decade, and that the points that she's raised about the workplace are valid, but that we believe that the the measures are there to ensure that enforcement takes place.

And I'm sure we can reflect with colleague Ministers about how the Health and Safety Executive operates, its responsibilities to help achieve the objectives the government have set in the strategy.
19:57
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords that have participated in this debate have participated in this debate and just quickly, in response to the Minister, I welcome the the Minister, I welcome the publication of the strategy tomorrow and we'll be looking in detail in terms of how we'll be looking at also the workplace, but just turning back to the debate that we had today on these specific probing amendments, which I believe have set out a clear objective. And I'm grateful for all those that have contributed.

And I think it's clear that the House agrees with the objective that these amendments are trying to achieve. Yet perhaps they need more work in terms of the wording, but just to respond to a few of the few of the comments made by noble Lords, the reminder by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about just how much time individuals spend in the workplace highlight how we cannot achieve the the government's aim to halve violent, halve violence against women and girls within this decade by ignoring the workplace and how how important that is.

In response to the frontbench, conservative frontbenchers point in relation to employers. I actually think that it was a really interesting point raised by the noble Lord Lord Pannick about actually how having a framework of this kind can help protect employers, and that is a positive in terms of how actually by having more guidance and having a framework and having those risk assessments, that also does protect employers liability in the future. So I think there are a few points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there raised that. Could I just remind the noble Lady that in drawing motions, your Lady that in drawing motions, your statements need to be brief and you don't need to summarise the debate. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate those comments. However, this is in terms of how we are going to take these amendments further, and I think it was a really useful discussion in committee, and I value the contributions that people have made. So going forward, I would like to withdraw these amendments today. However, this isn't the end of this discussion and I value the comments from the Minister as well about how we progress this, particularly with the wording of these amendments and taken on board the comments raised by the noble Lords in this debate.

So not only do I hope that His Majesty's Government reflects on this debate, and I'm grateful that this will be shared with the Minister, Jess Phillips, as well. I would welcome those to engage further too. So I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw these amendments today. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendments be withdrawn? Amendments by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments by leave withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. We will then move to dinner break business. We will to dinner break business. We will therefore not return to the bill before 2040.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is at the House to now again resolve its sorry. Question is asked. And how is it now resumed and that we don't resume on debate on the bill until what was the time you specified.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20, 40. Questions? On Questions? On a statement made in the House of Commons on Monday the 15th December on Jimmy Lai. Members may take a on Jimmy Lai. Members may take a
20:02
None Portrait Statement: Jimmy Lai
-

making the house.
20:02
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, His Majesty's Opposition echo the calls for the Opposition echo the calls for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai persecuted under the National Security Law, which is a breach of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Lies verdict was made by politically appointed judges and the trial was conducted conducted without a jury. Jimmy Lai is courage and resilience is an inspiration. Born during the Chinese Civil War, his mother was sent to a labour camp at the age of 12. He arrived in Hong Kong and worked his way up to become one of Hong Kong's success stories.

As a British citizen, he could have come to the UK when the National Security Law came into force, but he chose to stay in Hong Kong out of solidarity with its people and commitment to his work. At the age of 78, he has spent the last five years in prison, mostly in solitary confinement. My Lord Oates has been highlighted. Requests for consular access have been repeatedly refused, as well as for Lai to have full access to independent medical professionals amid concerns for his health.

Moreover, he has been refused access to the sacraments of the Catholic faith. The Chinese Communist Party's treatment of him and of Hong Kong are further evidence that the Chinese government cannot be trusted, nor are these matters simply internal affairs for China. Lai is a British citizen, and the national security law goes against the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which they signed and which obliges the UK to guarantee rights and freedoms in Hong Kong on the international world stage. The Chinese government has proved itself to be one which does not keep its word.

My Lords, we know the Chinese Communist Party cannot be trusted. And yet plans are progressing for a new super embassy, the largest embassy in Europe and their largest diplomatic outpost globally. A spokesman for the Chinese embassy has called for the planning application to be approved and to approve to, and, I quote, avoid further undermining the mutual trust and cooperation between the two sides. This is outrageous when it is they who have breached the joint declaration and who, even on British soil, continue to intimidate Hong Kongers.

If the planning application for the new super embassy is approved at the heart of our capital city, what signal does this give? Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, please explain why the government will not, at the very least, include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? My Lords, numerous civil society organisations, including Hong Kong Watch, have written a joint letter to the Prime Minister asking him to do more in the case of Jimmy Lai, noting that Australia, Canada and Ireland have been able to secure the release of their citizens imprisoned in China.

Yesterday, my Lords, the president of the United States called directly on Jinping to consider his release. Can the noble Baroness Minister, please clarify whether our own Prime Minister will follow suit and demand his release publicly? In addition, my Lords, if the Prime Minister refuses to cancel the visit to China in January, will the Prime Minister raise the matter and call for his release in person with President Xi? My Lords, we all recognise the complexities and competing considerations involved in the UK's relationship with China, but we cannot let those drown out or dilute the government's duty to its citizens or to national security.

My Lords, I urge the government to do more. Inspired by Jimmy Lai's own courage to stand up to the CCP's narrative and for our own principles and citizens.
20:06
Lord Oates Portrait Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I associate the Liberal Democrats with the strong Liberal Democrats with the strong condemnation of the government of the Chinese, of of of Jimmy Lai the Chinese, of of of Jimmy Lai political conviction and of the Chinese government for engineering it. And I join with the noble Lord in saluting the courage of Jimmy Lai, who, as he mentioned, instead of choosing the easy life that was available to him, decided at great personal cost to stand up for democracy and freedom.

I've had the privilege of knowing some of those who've made similar sacrifices in other parts of the world, and every time I've been humbled by the price they've been prepared to pay, knowing full well in advance of the potential consequences of their actions, that extraordinary and humbling courage requires a commensurate response from our government in defence of not only an international hero of democracy, but also a British citizen. Jimmy Lai is not alone, but many Hongkongers continue to advocate for democracy despite the consequences.

As the CCP continues to seek to undermine Hong Kong's agreed status. Hong Kong has in the UK also are subject to threats and intimidation from the Chinese state, including common law, who just last week was subjected to renewed campaign of intimidation against her. Can the Minister tell us what assurance the government can provide to Hong Kongers in the UK that they will be better protected from the outrageous actions of the CCP in our country? Will the government sanction the CCP officials responsible for extraterritorial intimidation? And will the FCDO update their submission to the Housing Secretary about the risks of the Super Embassy in light of the actions of the Chinese state? Finally, what action will the government take to signal beyond any doubt that the treatment of Jimmy Lai is wholly unacceptable and that the government will continue to seek his release vocally and with concrete action? Here?
20:08
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
I thank both noble Lords for >> I thank both noble Lords for what they have to say, particularly about Jimmy Lai himself. He truly about Jimmy Lai himself. He truly is a remarkable person. I know he's known I've not had the privilege of meeting him, but I know there are many in this House who have and who consider him a very dear friend. What he has done throughout his life is truly extraordinary, and the fact that at 78 years of age, he finds himself in this terrible situation for doing nothing other than standing up for democracy, is it is shocking, and the government is clear that he should be released and released immediately because his detention is politically motivated and there is no just reason to detain him in prison for a single minute longer.

The the government summoned the Chinese ambassador when the verdict was given. We have demanded that Jimmy Lai is released immediately. We are continuing to demand consular access, which has not been provided to date. We had senior officials attending the trial in order to make the point that the UK government is watching this very, very closely and we raise this with partners, including the United States. And we've raised this at every level with the Chinese as well. The decision to I mean, on the issue of the embassy, clearly, that decision to allow China to use the former Royal Mint was made under the previous government, and now it is subject to decisions to be made by MHCLG.

And that is a process that is ongoing. The Prime Minister has raised this personally and he will continue to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, as well as in addition to those questions asked about transnational repression and that is clearly a deep concern to the government. And we're committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have used their right to relocate here to the UK. And we're clear that any attempts by foreign governments, any foreign governments that includes China to coerce or to intimidate or harm their critics here are completely unacceptable freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under our domestic laws. Thank you. I draw your. Attention first to my role as vice chairman of the All Party vice chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which brought in a report on transnational oppression report on transnational oppression earlier this year and specifically called for China to be included in the Advanced Higher Tier of the the Advanced Higher Tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme referred to by the noble Lord Earl of Courtown.

And indeed it was Lord Oates who referred to Carmen Laub, one of the witnesses we had before that committee was Chloe Cheung, who as a young girl 14 years of age came to this country and at 19 years of age had a bounty of 1 million HKD placed on
20:11
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
her head, along with Carmen Lau and other British residents. My Lords, this is a very serious situation this is a very serious situation and I hope the noble Baroness will respond to the point about furs when she comes to reply. Jimmy Lai when she comes to reply. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and I know him and his family. I have immense and his family. I have immense admiration for his courage, his honesty, his integrity, and I fear that unless he's released, this outrageous conviction will prove to be a death sentence.

Jimmy Lai only crime has been to speak the truth, to believe in democracy, to champion freedom, and to defend the British China Treaty, which guaranteed two systems, one country and which has been broken again and again. My Lords, not more are we doing to secure unhindered access to Jimmy Lai medics, his pastor, consular officials and loved ones. Does the Minister agree that this sham trial has nothing to do with justice, and resembles Lewis Carroll's parody of nonsensical justice based on the verdict first trial, later, with the outcome always the foregone conclusion.

Since Lenin introduced show trials in 1922, Stalin and Mao Tse tung and today's CCP leaders have perfected a technique of gross judicial theatre to spread terror and to inculcate fear. Does the noble Baroness Nye Minister agree that the remaining British and Australian judges, who lend respectability to these star chambers, should follow Lord Sumption's and remove themselves forthwith? Rule of law has been replaced in Hong Kong by rule. By law, what are we doing to raise the cases of hundreds of pro-democracy supporters, such as Joshua Wong and Andy Lee, who continue to languish in CCP prisons, many on national security charges that range from the draconian to the ludicrous.

Will the Prime Minister please think again about going to China until Jimmy Lai has been released from these wretched prison conditions and allowed to leave and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be reunited with his family? Hello? Yeah, it did have a feeling of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, it did have a feeling of a Second Reading debate, but that's because the noble Lord is so knowledgeable about these issues. knowledgeable about these issues. But the case of his friend Jimmy Lai in particular, and I'm very Lai in particular, and I'm very grateful to noble Lord for putting up the position in the way that he did. And I agree with very much of did. And I agree with very much of what he said, particularly about Jimmy Lai personally. But I'll try and respond to the questions in a very straightforward way, as I possibly can, because I know that that's what he would want.

I don't have anything to tell him about Firs designations tonight. We haven't made decisions on that yet. And but as soon as that decision is made, I'm sure it will be
20:14
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
communicated in the usual way. He's absolutely right, and I couldn't agree with him more about the agree with him more about the nature of this trial, if we can call it that. It was politically motivated. There is there is no circumstance in which Jimmy Lai circumstance in which Jimmy Lai should be detained, that he should have access to consular officials, have access to consular officials, he should have access to his family. He should have access to medical treatment to people who can help him with his faith.

But he shouldn't need those things because he should not be imprisoned in the first place. On the issue of judges, I mean, we all have our professional regulations and codes that we need to stick to in this place and in any professional walk of life. But we also have our own consciences that guide the decisions that we make. And it is true that in this country that and it's good that our judiciary is independent and they make their own decisions and they make their own choices about what they do.

And but I did note the decision made by Lord Sumption and his reasons for making it. And I think people can get to their own conclusions on that. On the issue of prime ministerial travel to China, I don't know what the Prime Minister's plans are regarding going to China. I do think that it would be a mistake. And that's this is not a comment in relation to the specific question about the Prime Minister's travel, but a more general observation that I think it would be a mistake to cut off all ties with China at this point, because I think, you know, there was no leader level interaction for the previous six years and the previous government, it didn't get us very far.

And actually, I think we may be more successful if we do have that degree of engagement, but that when we have that engagement, we use it and we use it well to make these cases because as he said, this, this is Jimmy Lai case is surely one of the most abhorrent. But there are others too, and he's right to remind us of that.
20:17
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
I appreciate that we're no longer the superpower that we used longer the superpower that we used to be, but nonetheless, I think if we were to speak firmly to the government of China, it would be internationally noticed. The Chinese government has no respect for the rule of law. As we can see from the recent trial of Jimmy Lai, I know that the government occasionally resorts to saying that the decision about the embassy in the City of London is a at a quasi judicial stage.

Well, why not treat that with the same degree of seriousness that the Chinese treat the trial of Jimmy Lai and make a. Public political decision that until the Jimmy Lai case is resolved in a civilised way, there's no question of the embassy decision being progressed in the favour of the Chinese government. Hard bargaining is what they will respect. They want the embassy and it's ours to give it, so let's refuse it. Secondly, may I suggest, although we disagree with the United States in regard to its attitude towards President Putin and the behaviour that he has exhibited over the last several years, we can agree with the United States over the danger that the Chinese government poses, and should therefore use our alliance with the United States to apply real economic and diplomatic pressure, enhanced by our alliance with the United States, upon Beijing.

In relation to the Jimmy Lai case, I know from the press that President Trump is not happy with the Jimmy Lai case. Nobody here is. Let's use that, and let's use what strength we have in alliance with others to bring the Chinese to understand that this sort of behaviour is utterly intolerable and will not enhance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their own interests in the West. Well, I mean, we he's he's right to suggest that we speak to our to suggest that we speak to our allies and partners about this, and we try and elicit support from others in securing his release. And we are doing that, and we will continue to do that, including with the United States. And he asks why we don't just disregard the quasi judicial process and override it
20:19
20:20
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
Like Lord Alton, I have been actually rather involved with this actually rather involved with this whole process. The arrest and and whole process. The arrest and and the subsequent trial of Jimmy Lai. And I too am a patron of Hong Kong Watch. I'm also on the Joint Watch. I'm also on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and and my own members of my own chambers have been those acting for Jimmy Lai, in his case internationally. But I, I, I just wanted to raise a number of things because they haven't yet been mentioned is the extent to which Jimmy Lai is basically being used as an example.

He is the prosecution of Jimmy Lai is to silence those who are advocating for real democracy. That's what that's what it's really about. And the chilling effect is very real. And it's real. When you speak to lawyers there, it's real when you interact with people who have been major pro-democracy advocates, and the difficulty that people like Lord Alton and myself have been sanctioned by the Chinese because of our criticisms is that we can't be in touch often with people in Hong Kong with whom we've had long term relationships, because to do so would endanger them.

I understand that, in fact, if you look at the judgement, I appear as being someone who was seems to have been a collaborator in in Jimmy Lai crimes, although I've actually although I'm a very good close friend of his son and his daughter in law, I certainly have never met Jimmy Lai in my life. And yet I'm supposed to have been one of the people with whom he was conspiring to undermine the national security. But I just wanted to raise this issue of his being a man who's 78.

He's been in custody now for six years in solitary confinement. He's suffering serious ill health. And Sebastian Lai, his son, only two days ago was here in this house and described in some detail that the state of his health and and how concerned the family is. And the question that I'm asking is, couldn't our Prime Minister be asking for clemency on that basis? Because the children of Jimmy Lai are based in this country. They were educated in this country. Jimmy Lai has a British passport.

He's never, ever had any other passport. He's a British citizen, a British subject, and has always maintained that of himself. And and I think that if in the period between now and the visit to China by the Prime Minister, isn't that an opportunity to be negotiating for clemency and for him to be returned to Britain, where he could be with his children and live out the last part of his life?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, we've cleared Jimmy Lai is British, he should be released is British, he should be released and he should be released because there was no need for him to be detained in the first place. And detained in the first place. And this whole situation has been politically driven from the very politically driven from the very beginning, and not least because of the reasons that she describes about wanting to make an example
20:23
20:23
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
Returning to the question of the judges, will the noble Lady, the judges, will the noble Lady, the Minister, be a little bolder in the light of the clear death of the rule of law in Hong Kong, and the fact that the continued membership of six Commonwealth senior retired of six Commonwealth senior retired judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeals for Australian and two British, is used as support by the Chinese regime for the way they're behaving. In that light, will the government not be a little bit bolder and advise those judges that now is the time for them to resign, and to resign on the basis of a clear principle which must be well understood by them, however

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long they've been on the bench? Well, I can have a view about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I can have a view about that. I think others might have a view if the government were to view if the government were to attempt to instruct judges about what they should do. I think my comments in response to the earlier question are probably as far as I'm going to to go this evening, but I, I hear his I hear what he says, I hear his reasons for saying it. And I think, you know, that his words are on the record.

And perhaps those judges may want to consider the points that he has made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord True are not due to return to the bill until 2040. I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point. The question is to the House to adjourn during pleasure until 840. As many that will say content. Contrary, not content. the contents
20:26
20:40
20:41
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to committee proceedings and in so doing, to I rise to move the amendment 352 table in my name, which is quite straightforward, which is omitting the word alarm from the appropriate legislation as a new by way of a new clause. My Lords, in the landmark 1976 case of Handyside versus the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights established that freedom of expression under article ten extends to ideas that offend, shock or disturb unquote the state or any sector of the population.

The court emphasised that tolerance and pluralism are essential for a democratic society, and that this protection applies to both popular and unpopular expression. The cut and thrust of debate, whether political, religious or philosophical, means being able to challenge long standing and sometimes deeply cherished assumptions. And it can be shocking or disturbing, even alarming, to have the pillars of one's worldview challenged. It can be deeply uncomfortable, but it should not be a matter for the criminal law. My Lords, this is why I have tabled this amendment to the Public Order Act, 1986.

My amendment would remove the word alarm from both sections four and five of the 1986 act. Section four A currently criminalises words or behaviour which are intended to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress, and section five criminalises words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, even where that impact is not intended or indeed actually caused. But it seems to me that there should be no place in the criminal law of England and Wales for criminalising the citizen on the basis that his words or behaviour cause or are deemed likely to cause alarm.

Of course, the law should seek to protect the citizen from harassment and distress. These are impacts which can have untold negative effects on people. Freedom of speech should always be balanced with civility and kindness in a democratic society. But unlike harassment or distress, being alarmed is not inherently a negative impact. Indeed, it may be positive. For some years now, we've been warned that our planet is hurtling towards destructive and irreversible climate change, and I notice the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb on my benches.

But but, my Lords, temporarily, temporarily in my Lords. Such that it might not be able to support life as we know it. The science and the prescribed remedy are by no means universally accepted. I make no point about that. But I do observe that those seeking to change our economic behaviour have not flinched at alarming us of the peril we faced. Of course, if you believe that bad consequences will follow bad decisions, you will naturally warn of those dangers, as exemplified by the proponents of Project Fear during the EU referendum.

And if the perceived dangers are said to be catastrophic, it will inevitably alarm some people. This is seen in the expression of religious or philosophical belief. If a Christian preacher believes, as Christians do, that the day of judgement is approaching, in which all people will be judged for the lives they have lived in the here and now, it should come as no surprise that the preacher will seek to raise the alarm bell. My Lords. Forgive me. Get there. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. Get there in the end. Yes. Please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please. Please. Thank you. If you believe that. Thank you. I'm believe that. Thank you. I'm indebted. If you believe that world consumption of meat is causing the decimation of rainforests and decimation of rainforests and leading to the overproduction of carbon dioxide gases, you might well want to alarm the complacent well want to alarm the complacent Beefeater of those catastrophic consequences. In order to make the case for veganism. It is therefore curious that our Public Order Act 1986 seeks to criminalise behaviour where words or behaviour lead merely to alarm being caused or likely to be caused.

Everyone remembers the infamous case of the gay horse. A drunk Oxford student stopped a mounted police officer and said this was in 2005 and said, excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay? For this, he was charged under section five of the Public Order Act on the basis that his words were deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Of course, there were no members of the public around, so the question is who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress? The horse? Clearly there is something wrong with that threshold if it can be used in such a ridiculous way.

And I have to say, this was not Thames Valley Police finest moment. My Lords, I know it will be suggested, in response to my amendment that the underlying behaviour giving rise to alarm in sections four and five must be threatening, abusive or insulting for the threshold of the crime to be established. And of course, I agree threatening or abusive words or behaviour can never be justified. But the reference to insulting in section four a. Is a lower threshold.

It potentially catches speech which some might be offended by. It was Lord Justice Sedley who, in a famous judgement in 1999, said the freedom of expression includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence, freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having, unquote. Whilst I'm not suggesting that anyone should seek to be offensive, we all know that offence can nevertheless be caused when cherished beliefs are or assumptions are challenged.

My Lords, to be told you are wrong can feel offensive and certainly insulting, but it is necessary, a necessary price to be paid for freedom of speech. That said, my Lords, I'm not seeking to amend section four to remove the word insulting in the way that this House voted to do in respect of section five back in 2013. I actually have no difficulty with criminalising insulting words or behaviour where there is an intent to cause harassment and distress, but I do have a problem with criminalising words which are neither threatening nor abusive, but merely taking to be insulting where they mean there may merely be an intention to alarm someone, for example, to shake them out of perceived folly or complacency.

As I have said, this House voted for the removal of the word insulting from section five of the Public Order Act back in 2012, and that change was rightly implemented in the Crime and Courts Act of 2013. So why am I, therefore suggesting we also remove the word alarm from section five as well? As for my Lords? The reason is simple because it is too easy for police and prosecutors to focus on the perceived impact of words spoken, rather than the nature of the words spoken or the intent behind them.

If a member of the public, perhaps even an activist for a cause, complains to police about the message preached by a Christian street preacher, it is too easy for that. For the fact that the member of the public is alarmed by what they have heard to trigger or prejudge an investigation. This can have an untold chilling effect on freedom of speech. So even in cases where the words spoken have not been threatening or abusive or indeed intended to be so, the fact a complainant is alarmed has been sufficient for a law abiding street preacher to be warned or stopped from continuing what is lawful activity.

And it should be remembered that the provisions of the Public Order Act, which I am seeking to amend, apply as much within a public space as a church or other public meeting as they do on the streets or in a marketplace. My Lords, I do not believe that my amendments would remove anything essential from either section 4 or 5. I say this because I would suggest that if words or conduct are genuinely threatening or abusive, they will cause for the purpose of section four or would likely to cause for the purpose of section five harassment or distress.

The additional inclusion of of the word alarm is otiose, but its real life impact erodes our freedoms. In a nation which has long valued freedom of expression. Finally, my Lords, my proposed amendment, if enacted, would send a clear signal to police and prosecutors that speech that offends, shocks, or disturbs is indeed lawful. At the same time, my amendment does nothing to remove real protection from victims who have suffered. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 109, insert the new clause set out on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshall List. My Lord. No no no no, he's saying actually that when he hissed saying actually that when he hissed at me when I was on the bench here that I should shut up because I was rude. That's okay. Because it didn't alarm me. Can I be doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

didn't alarm me. Can I be doing that? And we almost came to blows. I reckon that we've always had a robust exchange of views. I did not in any sense seek to alarm the lady, the noble Lady, but from memory she arrived late to a group of amendments pontificated for a few minutes on issues which she had not heard. And then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, I think I'm just going to call a halt at this point in time. This is a remembrance of things past. We've remembrance of things past. We've got an important amendment to discuss today, and I think we should focus on those on on those amendments. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Thank you. I thank the noble, the noble gentleman, the whip, the noble Lord, the Minister, the whip. I was the Minister, the whip. I was merely elucidating for the benefit of the House, the context of the of the noble Lady's rather strange the noble Lady's rather strange intervention on my remarks. I don't quite have a recollection in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

same way that she did. noble Lord has moved the amendment and the opportunities there for other members to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there for other members to speak to the amendment. My Lords, I, of course, wish the Committee a very happy Christmas. Committee a very happy Christmas. When that moment comes. But it wasn't just in seasonal spirit that I signed the noble Lord Jackson of I signed the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough amendment. As, as as he indicated, free expression is a two way street, and I suggest it's a two way street in at least two ways. Firstly, because all Democrats of whichever side of the aisle ought to ought to guard it jealously.

And secondly, because it must be applied with an even hand, even to to people and ideas and causes with which we very seriously disagree. And before entering your Lordships House, I worked at Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, for for 15 years.
20:53
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
And in that time I saw the concept of behaviour causing or even just of behaviour causing or even just likely to cause harassment, alarm likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, used and abused to arrest and even prosecute people in a way that I believe all members of the committee would consider abusive. And certainly when applied abusive. And certainly when applied to people like us, or causes with which we agree. Alarm and arguably even distress, as opposed to a reasonable fear of a threat or of harm are very broad.

Harassment is a course of conduct and therefore a bit more objective and and less broad. Sections four and five of the Public Order Act 1984 obviously create two specific criminal offences. But the rubric of harassment, alarm and distress also now forms the the linchpin of of anti-social behaviour with its quasi civil and criminal orders. And actually even broader approach that police guidance and police websites take to to this concept of anti-social behaviour.

But but that particular matter was obviously discussed earlier in committee. The offences, the two offences that the the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough has identified in my direct experience over many years have been applied broadly, indiscriminately and of course, ironically in a discriminatory way to, for example, peaceful protesters to, for example, anti-monarchists for wearing Republican slogans on their t shirts when a member of the royal family is in town and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough gave other examples of of words that can offend, words that can cause alarm and distress, as opposed to fear or threats of real harm.

I gave the example of the anti-monarchist. He was not just arrested, but I believe charged for the for the t shirt in question. But there are also cases of youngsters being charged, certainly being arrested for being cheeky with the police. And I think this is can't just be blamed on the police when these concepts on the public order statute book are just too vague and to and too broad. My Lords. To attempt to to leaven the spirit yet again the week before Christmas, I'm reminded that today at PMQs, and not for the first time, the the Leader of the Opposition made reference, if euphemistically, to the Prime Minister's private parts.

Now, of course, that sort of thing would never happen in your Lordships House, but whatever. But whatever noble Lords think of that approach to parliamentary debate, people on our streets, ordinary people have been arrested and charged for less. Can that really be right? I think not. Just a few words in support of the amendments.
20:57
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
And just to say. >> How high. I agree with the difficulty of categorising alarm in difficulty of categorising alarm in the same manner as harassment and distress. I think it's a much harassment and distress can be objectively measured or distress objectively assessed. But when it comes to alarm, I think what noble Lords have said so far is that, in fact, it may shock some some. It may cause a shock to hear somebody in your group saying something which is so obvious, so, so shocking in being different to anything you could imagine being said.

Or I can give you an example of a a representative image or a representation which may be designed to shock. I don't know, but let me give you an example. I was a supporter of Brexit in a very remain constituency, Cambridge City. We usually invite people at the end of term, and I had a vote Leave poster in my window, but they were coming to a party to celebrate the end of term. So I said to my husband, I'll take that down because I don't want to upset them and their end of term.

And afterwards, none of them ever could imagine that I was somebody who might support leave. And and when I told them, they said we had no idea. I couldn't have imagined. I knew anybody in Cambridge who voted leave so that, I suppose you could say, was a bit. I was trying not to spoil the day because people take these matters very seriously. But you could see that alarm could be equated to an instance of thoughtlessness, bad manners, or a deliberate intention to shock, as some people will do.

But it isn't a matter to criminalise. And for those reasons, I would support removing alarm from section four and five, and I would leave harassment and distress because there are more objective can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measured. I Lord Jones. Baroness Chakrabarti for raising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Chakrabarti for raising a point that really hadn't occurred to me in years of gazing at section four and section five of the Public four and section five of the Public Order Act, and I'd like to thank Lord Jackson for his reference to the Handyside case, quite correctly observing that freedom of speech means nothing if it does not include the freedom to offend, to include the freedom to offend, to shock and to disturb. But of course, in Handyside they were talking about ideas that offend, shock and disturb, and section four and section five are not talking about ideas.

As a noble Lord said, they are talking about threats and abuse
21:00
21:01
21:03
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Okay. >> Can I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling amendment 352 and it is welcome to see such a cross-party collection of noble Lords supporting the amendment. Lady Chakrabarti, Lord Verdirame and Baroness Fox of Buckley. These are not names always seen together on an amendment. The amendment proposes to remove the word alarm from sections four and five of the 1986 act. As we've heard, and as others have said, My Lords, alarm is a word that denotes impression and mood and temperament.

It's a word that allows, I would say, the criminal law to stray beyond the prevention of genuine disorder and into the policing of irritation, discomfort or unease. And there have been several legal cases which have shown where this can lead. In a case called DPP against Oram, 1989 A conviction was upheld under section five for shouting abuse at police officers, and the court accepted that even trained officers, accustomed as they might be to a degree of verbal abuse, could nonetheless be persons likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

And while that may be understandable up to a point, it demonstrates how low the threshold has been set. If professionals whose job it is to face confrontation can be alarmed by rude language, one begins to wonder who cannot be. Another case was called Norwood versus DPP in 2003, where a man was convicted for displaying a poster in his window. The poster said Islam out of Britain, and again the reasoning rested partly on the likelihood of causing alarm. Whatever one thinks, my Lords, the views expressed and I think many of us would deplore them.

The case illustrates how alarm can operate as a gateway through which deeply subjective reactions become the basis for criminal liability, and it seems that these cases represent symptoms of a statutory provision that has no clear boundary. Alarm doesn't mean fear of violence. It doesn't require intimidation. It doesn't even require serious upset. It has been stretched to cover being offended, unsettled, or merely uncomfortable. And that is not a sound basis. I would suggest for criminal liability. As others have said, the law retains and contains safeguards where genuine harm arises.

Harassment would remain in the wording of the statute. Distress would remain in the wording of the provision in section four remains available for fear or provocation of violence. Other statutes address stalking, threats and coercive conduct. I would suggest my friend's amendment removes nothing that is truly necessary to protect the public. What it does do is restore a measure of seriousness to public order law. Criminal offences should address conduct that is objectively wrongful, not speech or behaviour that happens to alarm someone whose threshold for alarm may be maybe very low.

So this amendment has our wholehearted support, and I hope it has the support of the noble Lord, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, as well. I confess, my Lords, that when I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I confess, my Lords, that when I woke up this morning, I didn't anticipate having a discussion around Thames Valley Police and a around Thames Valley Police and a gay horse. But such, such is such as political life on the government as political life on the government front bench. Nor did I anticipate talking about the Prime Minister's private parts, which my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti referred to. But on a more serious note, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Jackson for his amendments, and I want to begin by confirming what my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti said, which is the right to express views, even though those that may be unpopular is a
21:07
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
vital part of our democratic society, and freedom of expression society, and freedom of expression is absolutely vital. Now the noble Lord Jackson, noble Lady Baroness Lawlor, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti have argued to remove Chakrabarti have argued to remove the word alarm from section four A and five of the Public Order Act and five of the Public Order Act 1986. I'm grateful for the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich for giving some balance to the argument and coming to a conclusion which I share, which is that to remove behaviour that causes alarm from these offences would mean that behaviour which frightens or unsettles someone, but which does not amount to harassment or distress would no longer be covered.

Now that why does that matter? It matters because it would narrow the scope of the law, reduce the ability of police to intervene early in potentially volatile situations, such as the one that the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich mentioned in relation to activity on a train late at night, potentially by an individual with too many beers in their body. So that's a valuable cause of alarm. Now, I say to the noble Lord Cameron, these provisions have been in place for many years.

In fact, they were passed under the government of Mrs. Thatcher, which is not usually a thing I pray in aid of when discussing legislation in this House. But removing alarm at this stage, I think, and this goes to the point the noble Baroness Doocey mentioned, would affect how offences operate in practice, including the thresholds that have developed through case law and would impact upon the existing legal framework, which already ensures that enforcement decisions are made proportionately and in line with human rights obligations, including the right.

Very important, as my noble friend said, to freedom of expression. So I think that the balance that the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich struck is one that I would strike as well. It's a long standing, 39 year piece of legislation that has held up and has been interpreted in a sensible way by those who have legal powers to both use it as police officers, use it as the CPS, and ultimately to ensure that that alarm element remains. Having said all of that, noble Lords will be aware that the Home Secretary has commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven Casey, is considering.

He is going to consider the thresholds relating to public order and hate crime legislation, whether they remain fit for purpose, whether legislative changes are required, whether we could have more consistent approaches to inciting hatred, how we ensure offence thresholds do not interfere with free speech, and how we deal with the type of issues that the noble Lord has mentioned. So again, I believe we should stay where we are for the reasons outlined, but there is a review ongoing. I think it's important that we allow that review to conclude.

It will conclude by spring. I understand of next year the government will consider and respond to whatever recommendations come forward. We don't know what those recommendations might be, but they're there to be done. And that's why the reason the Home Secretary's commission did. So. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. But I also have, I hope, put a defence of why we should maintain where we are. But in the light of the potential review particularly, I'd invite the noble Lord to withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his typically Minister, for his typically thoughtful and considered response, and I think he would concede this and I think he would concede this has been a very interesting and intelligent debate, and I'd like to thank all the noble Lords that took thank all the noble Lords that took part, but particularly my noble friend Baroness Lawlor Lord friend Baroness Lawlor Lord Anderson of the noble Lord, noble learned Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and Baroness Noble, Lady Baroness Chakrabarti, and also to thank Lord Verdirame, who was the noble Lord Verdirame was hoping to take part in the debate.

But because this committee has overrun somewhat, he wasn't able to be here. And obviously also my, my, the noble Lady, Baroness Fox of Buckley. I think it's a very finely judged judgement which both the noble Lady Chakrabarti and the noble and
21:12
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
learned Lord Anderson touched upon what the real meaning of alarm is, what the real meaning of alarm is, and I take on board the comments of the noble Lord Anderson. But I think it's important to look in the think it's important to look in the context of the advice and guidance that the police are given in terms of the use of both section four and section five of the Public Order Act. So, for instance, section five, in order to breach section five, a in order to breach section five, a person needs to act in either a threatening or abusive manner.

He also needs to intend his words or behaviour to be threatening or abusive, or is aware that it may be threatening or abusive. And I would say alarm is a lower standard of criminality, a lower bar than that. And in respect of for a according to police guidance, it's designed to deal with, quote more serious planned and malicious incidents of insulting behaviour. You're more likely to be accused of a section four offence in relation to a comment directed to a particular individual, for example, publicly singling out singling out someone in a crowd.

So those I think are the differences and I think we will, we will have. A different viewpoint as to the appropriateness and whether alarm is appetite for dealing with these offences. But having said all that, we may come back to this and I'm sure the noble Lady Chakrabarti, whom I'm very grateful for her support, very unusual, but it is it's a seasonal phenomenon that we we agree from time to time, even agree with the noble Lady Baroness Jones from time to time.

So on, on the basis of Christmas spirit and all that and the fact that we will no doubt return to this at report, I'm happy to withdraw my amendment with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave of the House. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 353 Baroness Sugg. My Amendment 353 Baroness Sugg. My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name in this group. amendments in my name in this group. Amendments 353 and 355 co-signed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Ladies, Baroness Doocey and Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws relate to a statutory definition of honour based abuse and the duty to
21:14
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
issue multi-agency statutory guidance on a base. Abuse is a form of domestic abuse motivated by an of domestic abuse motivated by an abuser's perception that a person has bought or may bring dishonour or shame to themselves, their or shame to themselves, their family or their community. It can take many forms and is often complex to identify, but it centres complex to identify, but it centres on controlling individuals to compel them to behave in certain ways or subscribe to certain beliefs, and for some, the concept beliefs, and for some, the concept of honour is prized above the safety and well-being of individuals, and to compromise a family's honour is to bring dishonour and shame and extreme cases.

This is used to justify abuse, disownment or physical harm on a base. Abuse is not a cultural tradition or religious practice. It's a form of abuse and occur that can occur with any within any community, regardless of faith or background. Despite increased reporting to the National Honour Based Abuse Helpline commissioned by the Home Office, it remains the least prosecuted form of violence against women and girls across agencies. It's inconsistently recognised, poorly understood and inadequately responded to. Without clarity. Frontline professionals are unsure how to spot the signs and victims can slip through the cracks.

The need for change is starkly illustrated by the story of Fawziyah. Javed Fawziyah was a lawyer. She understands the importance, she understood the importance of evidence and tried to protect herself and her unborn child. She repeatedly sought help reporting to health professionals, contacting the police and gathering evidence against her abusers for her situation was not taken seriously. Her case exposes a persistent and systemic failure to recognise honour based abuse within statutory systems. Multiple perpetrators were involved, but they were overlooked because investigations often focus on a single individual, reflecting approaches designed for intimate partner domestic abuse rather than the extended collective and coercive nature of honour based abuse.

In late August 2021, when Fauzia made a second report to the police, the Rishi face had still not been recognised and on on the 2nd of September 2021, Fauzia, aged 31 and 17 weeks pregnant with a baby boy, was tragically murdered when her husband pushed her from Arthurs Seat in Edinburgh. Immediately after this, as was shown in the channel four documentary The Push, he did not call 999. The first call he made was to his own father, and this illustrates the family involved dynamics of honour based abuse, which are too often overlooked by statutory systems.

Fauzia's mother, Yasmin Javed, has led the campaign to ensure that her daughter's legacy drives meaningful change and permitted me to share her story. Yasmin's courage and advocacy ensure that survivors voices are heard and their experiences are recognised. She believes strongly that the lack of understanding of honour based abuse and the absence of a universal statutory definition meant that force's experience and the perpetrators were missed. Fauzia's story demonstrates why we urgently need a statutory definition and accompanying guidance, not just for the police and prosecutors, but for teachers, for social workers, healthcare professionals indeed, everyone who has an opportunity to identify abuse early before it escalates.

It will help professionals understand its complex dynamics and act decisively to protect victims. My Lords, in August, the government announced six new measures to tackle honour based abuse, including legislating at the earliest opportunity to introduce a statutory definition and multi-agency guidance. And I'm very pleased we're on the same page on that. Turning to the definition itself, amendment 353 puts forward a suggested definition that has been developed over a number of years. It is not my definition, but the product of sustained work by the sector, by legal experts, and most importantly, by survivors with lived experience.

From 2022, survivors work with the University of Nottingham to develop a survivor informed definition. This work identified serious limitations in existing non-statutory definitions, and provided a framework that captures the collective and coercive nature of this abuse. Building on this survivor informed foundation barrister barrister Naomi Wiseman, drawing on extensive experience in this field, led further work with violence against women and girls sector partners to draft a statutory definition through multiple iterations. Consensus was reached upon a definition that reflects the complexity of honour based abuse, and to date, this work has engaged survivors, over 60 organisations and specialist legal expertise.

It combines lived experience with professional knowledge to bring clarity, consistency and stronger protections, and this process has been truly sector wide and survivor led survivors voices have shaped every iteration, ensuring that the definition reflects the realities of honour based abuse. I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to all of those involved, particularly the survivors, their dedication and insight born from personal experience and from gaps in professional responses, has ensured that future victims can be recognised, protected and believed in the ways that they were not.

The survivor led process is required. Significant time, expertise and emotional labour, often carried out amid ongoing abuse, ostracism and bereavement. Every consultation involves survivors and bereaved families retelling painful and traumatic experiences. They do this out of a sense of duty so that their survival can mean something for the many who are not able to speak out. Dame Nicola Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, has welcomed this work. She said I recognise the significant progress that has been made to date and emphasise the importance of grounding any definition in survivor experience.

I support the ongoing work led by survivors, the specialist sector and karma Nirvana to ensure the definition is effective. My Lords, of course we all want a definition that works and I therefore welcome the debate to come so that we can agree a definition that's fit for purpose, one that respects survivors lived experience and treats their contribution with a seriousness that it deserves. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister and Home Office officials for their engagement. To date, I know that work is ongoing on a revised definition, and I hope that we can work together with survivors experts in the sector to return at report with a workable, legally sound definition that reflects survivors experiences, strengthens protection, and supports effective multi-agency working.

And my Lords, timing matters here. For years, the survivors sector and frontline professionals have called for the statutory definition and this bill is the vehicle through which change must be delivered. And it really can't wait any longer. The CPS and police are revising their guidance, which is due mid next year, and they need a statutory definition in place to do so effectively. The success of this reform will also depend on the roll out of a clear, comprehensive communication of IT and training, and a commitment.

I'm pleased to say that the government has already made for next year, and we need the definition to make that effective. For too long, perpetrators have escaped accountability while victims have been failed, and the time to act is now. I now turn to amendment 334. In my name and co-signed by the Right Reverend the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lady, noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the Shaws and the noble Baroness. Lady Ducey has tabled a similar amendment in this group. Amendment 334 would recognise honour as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

It would ensure early identification of honour based abuse in investigations and prosecutions, and that sentences properly reflect the gravity of the offending. Safeguarding would be strengthened for victims facing risks from multiple perpetrators, and it would also act as a stronger deterrent. The murder of Sumayya Beegum, a 20 year old biomedical student, exposed a critical critical gap in the criminal justice system despite an active forced marriage protection order, Sammy was murdered by a family member. Evidence at trial demonstrated the role of family pressures and honour dynamics.

Yet the court concluded it is not possible to identify a motive for this dreadful attack. In his defence statement, the defendant explicitly relied on notions of honour to shift blame onto other family members, but despite this, the judge did not recognise honour in sentencing, and this demonstrates how the formal the absence of a formal recognition allows key motivations to be overlooked, weakening justice and accountability. Sammy's case and other cases, such as the terrible murder of Banaz Mahmood that I know the noble Lady Baroness Doocey will refer to, illustrates several wider systemic failures.

Yesterday would have been Banaz's 40th birthday, and I pay tribute to Banaz's sister, Mahmood, who's been a tireless advocate for changes to the law and Banaz's memory and who have worked closely with on this campaign. I also want to acknowledge Banaz's sister, who is calling for change in this area, to when we do not recognise the aggravation of honour in the perpetrators of these crimes, there are multiple consequences. First, the erasure of victims. When honour motivations are not named, survivors and families feel unseen and invalidated, deepening mistrust in the justice system and perpetuating silence.

Secondly, unreliable data judgements rarely reference honour, creating the false impression that such cases are infrequent or absent despite evidence to the contrary. And thirdly, low prosecution rates between April 2024 and March 2025, only 95 honour based abuse prosecutions were bought, with fewer than half resulting in conviction. Supporting this amendment would address these failures, improve data, strengthen accountability, and ensure that courts formally acknowledge honour based motivations, giving survivors and families the recognition and justice they deserve. My Lords, given we are a little later than planned, many noble Lords who were going to speak in favour of these amendments are sadly no longer in this place in their place.

And that includes the noble Lady Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, who, given her, given her long experience, fully supports these amendments, in particular making honour based abuse and aggravating feature to send a clear message to communities, but also to sentencing judges. My Lords, I want to pass on my sincere thanks to the noble Lady, the Minister, for the meeting, to discuss these amendments, not just with her, but with three Ministers and officials from across both departments. I'm also very grateful for her own suggestion that she speaks to the sector and survivor representatives ahead of this debate, to hear from them directly.

I listened with interest the noble Lord Lord Hanson earlier in response to the urgent question on the Vawg strategy, and I look forward to tomorrow reading that strategy, given his reference a number of times to honour based abuse. I appreciate that they are clearly working to make progress on this, and I have two questions for the Minister. Will she commit to continuing to work with the sector to bring forward amendments on an agreed definition and guidance for Report stage? And secondly, whilst I heard the Minister's explanation on Monday regarding existing aggravating factors and sentencing practice, we know from reviewing sentencing remarks in cases of clear honour based abuse that in practice, these factors are inconsistently applied and often fail to capture the collective, coercive and family or community driven nature of this abuse.

In that context, could the Minister set out the government's position on formally recognising honour based abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing? My Lords, in conclusion, I pay tribute again to the tireless work and bravery of survivors. Without them, the progress in this work to date would not be possible. I'd also like to thank Karma Nirvana, whose incredible work supports victims and survivors, brings the sector together collaboratively and campaigns for these life saving changes. Alongside 60 leading organisations. I'm deeply, deeply grateful to the survivors and sector representatives who attended a briefing for noble Lords here last month.

They reminded us plainly that honour based abuse remains an invisible crime, with invisible perpetrators and tragically invisible victims. They told us that making progress on these amendments will save lives, prevent immeasurable harm and deliver recognition and justice for those who deserve it. Fauzia Sumayya, Behnaz and so many others cannot speak for themselves, but through the courage of their families and advocates, we have the opportunity to act in their names.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After clause. 109, insert the following new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

109, insert the following new clause as printed on the martial list. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg for moving her amendment. This group also includes amendment 356 group also includes amendment 356 in my name and those of Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Blower, who
21:26
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
support I greatly, greatly appreciate. I'd also like to thank Southall Black Sisters for their tireless campaigning in this vital area. I echo the noble Baroness Sugg in paying tribute to Barnardo's Mahmood and to the extraordinary courage of her sisters, Beckerle and Patsy, whose tireless campaigning has kept the spotlight on honour based abuse. In the hope and as his legacy will drive real and lasting change. Barnardo's was just 20 when she was murdered by her father, uncle and five male cousins.

Her crime leaving her abusive husband and for having a boyfriend she wished to marry. Her family convened a council of war to plan her killing, claiming that her wish for divorce and choice of partner brought shame on the family and wider community. She did everything we tell victims to do on five separate occasions she reported rape, violence and threats to kill even an attempt on her life by her own father. She named those who would later murder her, yet she was not believed or protected.

Her murder is not an isolated tragedy, but emblematic of wider patterns of institutional failure to identify and respond to honour based abuse. This is why I've also added my name to the amendments 353 and 355, calling for a statutory definition to be brought forward as quickly as possible alongside guidance. So the thousands of incidents of such abuse reported in the UK each year are treated with a gravity they deserve. I to urge the government not to miss the opportunity presented by this Bill, and hope the Minister will provide that reassurance.

Amendment 356 would make honour a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. A similar amendment in the other place limited this to murder, but here it is deliberately broader. This would ensure that any offence committed in the name of honour is explicitly treated. Excuse me as aggravated in sentencing. It shares the aim of amendment 354, but in the absence of an existing statutory definition, it defines the aggravating factor independently, focusing instead on the perpetrator's conduct and mirroring existing language from racial and religious aggravation laws.

This approach would allow the aggravating factor to take effect immediately, while consultations on the definition take place between the government and the sector. Critically, amendment 356 also recognises the frequent involvement of multiple perpetrators and colluders. In Bazaz case. Police estimated around 50 men were involved either in the killing or in shielding those responsible. This recognition is vital for improving how agencies identify and respond to such abuse. I have reflected on the comments made during Monday's committee around the concept of honour already being adequately covered in legislation.

I do not want to anticipate the minister's response, but imagine she will say judges are already familiar with the concept of honour, and that the evidence of its presence will already result in a stiffer sentence. However, I believe explicit reference to honour offences sends an important message to relevant communities that, far from being a mitigating crime of violence for violence in our society, it actually aggravates the offence. Many victims, who are often black, minority or migrant women and girls still do not report abuse, believing the system will not recognise their situation.

Their experiences are minimised and misread by those in a position to help them. Fitting honour based abuse into existing laws fails to tackle these unique issues or drive the real change that is so desperately needed.
21:31
Baroness Gohir Portrait Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)
-
-
To declare my interest as CEO of >> To declare my interest as CEO of Muslim Women's Network UK, I have a helpline and we deal with honour based abuse cases. My Lords, while based abuse cases. My Lords, while I support in principle the introduction of a statutory definition on honour based abuse, it is essential that the Home Office concludes its work on the definition. I am a part of the advisory group working on this alongside many other stakeholders. We must ensure that a final version is workable and fair, and includes statutory guidance as recommended in amendment 355.

However, I do oppose the definition that's been put forward at the moment, and I appreciate why noble Lady Baroness Sugg has suggested it to create debate and discussion. And I have a number of concerns. And while I appreciate that a number of organisations have put their name forward to the proposed definition, I suspect many haven't gone through it line by line like we would do in here, and probably just accepted it at face value and not realised and thought about. Is it applicable in law? So my my Lords, firstly the definition list types of abuses that could be motivated by shame.

However, I note that stalking and harassment, which are specific offences under the law, are not mentioned, which could be motivated by honour, particularly when a victim has escaped from the family or partner and attempts are made to track the person down and try and contact them, and to try and bring them back. Also, non-fatal strangulation and suffocation is not included in the list. I'd like to see them included. My Lords. Secondly, what does the following wording actually mean? The perceived norms of the communities accepted behaviours and the community being shamed.

What do we mean by the community and what do we mean by perceived norms and accepted behaviours? There has to be. This has to be legally clear for it to be applied. My Lords, what community are we referring to? The the usage of this word has not been challenged for decades, and we just blindly accept that terminology. Let's take Birmingham, a city where I live. It's got a population of more than 1,500,000 of the population, or more than 500,000 are from a minority ethnic background.

Let's try and delve deeper into this population. Around about 190,000 are from a Pakistani background, 20,000 are Arab, 66,000 are Indian heritage, 17,000 are Somali heritage. And I could go on with that breakdown. So if somebody commits honour based abuse crime in Birmingham. And are we then suggesting all of those communities, the, the 190,000 Pakistani community are all shamed, including myself, by that crime? Well, that's not true. We would be stereotyping the whole community. And the communities are so diverse.

Even if we amended the wording to the perpetrator and or their family feeling they have been shamed or will lose honour and respect within their community. So the tens. Are the the, the thousands or the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will not know who they are. A more accurate description, in my opinion, would be to say perpetrators perception of being dishonoured amongst their family and their social circle and their kinship group, I feel is is more accurate.

By using this description, the honour based abuse definition could even have a wider application. Well, this type of abuse is mostly associated with minority ethnic communities on a base. Abuse can occur in other contexts, even if to a much lesser extent. For example, it can happen in white and non-minority contexts too, particularly with the rise of toxic masculinity and the manosphere. Violence could be justified, as she embarrassed me and she shamed me then. Abuse is committed for that reason.

It could also be applied to gang related contexts, where violence is sometimes used to restore and protect honour. My Lords, now I want to turn to accepted behaviours. So how will this be interpreted in law? This wording is open, opens the definition up to subjective interpretation, risking inconsistent application. Legal risks could include prosecutors struggling to prove motive, a motive beyond reasonable doubt. The defence could argue alternative motivations such as control, jealousy and anger. We must also ensure those applying a legal definition are provided with clear guidance when any form of abuse is motivated by honour and shame.

Otherwise, automatic assumptions cannot be made that abuse is motivated by shame and honour. Just because the perpetrator is from a particular background. For example, they are from a South Asian background. Evidence will need to be will be needed to justify why that motivation is linked. To honour as accepted behaviours may vary. It would be wise to list some key ones. If it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list. My Lords, the very last part of the definition, which talks about the perception of shame, preventing a victim from accessing support and help if honour based abuse is going to be used as an aggravating factor to increase sentencing.

This part needs to be strengthened further. This section needs to be linked to the behaviour of the perpetrator. Instead, it should be framed as where the perpetrator exploits concepts of shame and honour through threats, intimidation, coercion or blackmail to prevent or deter the victim from seeking support, protection or assistance. An example of this is using intimate images to prevent a victim from speaking out by threatening to share those images. So by putting all of that together, I want to propose the following definition.

And some of this could be put in a statutory in in some guidance on a base. Abuse is an incident or pattern of abuse, where the perpetrator is motivated by their belief that the victim has, or may cause them and or their family to lose honour or respect within their social circle or kinship group because of behaviours that are perceived to bring shame to them. That may include choosing one's own partner, refusing forced marriage or female genital mutilation or other harmful practices, having premarital premarital sex or relationship outside of marriage or pregnancy outside of marriage, having inter-faith inter-ethnic inter-caste relationships.

Ending a marriage or seeking divorce. Having LGBTQ plus identity or relationship. Seeking education or employment against family wishes. Not dressing or having an appearance according to family expectations. Having friends of the opposite sex. Refusing family control over decisions. Disclosing abuse and seeking help. Acts of betrayal within gang related relationships. Types of abuse may include physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, stalking and harassment, non-fatal strangulation or suffocation, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse. Spiritual faith related abuse.

Psychological and emotional abuse, isolation. Harmful cultural practices such as forced marriage. Intimate image abuse, especially in relation to silencing victims. Now the definition is long and some of it could be in the guidance and it would need tweaking. Now I want to turn to amendment 354, which proposes making honour based abuse an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Once we have defined on a base abuse, I support this amendment. I too would like to acknowledge the long standing campaign called Barnardo's law to get this very law passed.

Barnardo's Mahmood was murdered by her family in an honour killing in 2006. Her sister Mahmood has been campaigning to have honour based abuse to become a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. She's being supported by Southall Black Sisters in her campaign. I hope the government will join us and acknowledge their campaign and hard work. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lady, the Minister and to find out whether the government is committed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honour based abuse definition in this bill. Thank you. My Lord. I'm in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm in. Complete agreement with all of these new clauses, which I think are long overdue. And I congratulate my noble friend congratulate my noble friend Baroness Sugg for an excellent exposition. And also the noble Lady Baroness Doocey for a strong Baroness Doocey for a strong support. Well, first of all, I want to criticise the term honour based
21:40
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
to criticise the term honour based abuse, since there's nothing honourable about it. And the term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honour based abuse was invented by action. Seem more. Honourable than it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is in reality. These acts are abusive, destructive, involve horrible murders of girls and women, and they're morally wrong and and they're morally wrong and thoroughly evil. Now I understand, of course, that in an ideal world we have a different terminology. we have a different terminology. We're not an ideal world. We probably cannot change the name now, since it's widely used and widely since it's widely used and widely understood and in law. But calling it what it is helps us refute the false framing that protects abusers as if they were doing something decent instead of evil.

So, my Lords, moving on. What's the extent of the problem in the United Kingdom? Well, it's estimated that at least 12 so-called honour killings occurred in the UK each year, which averages out to at least one woman or girl being murdered per month. The exact number is not known, as these crimes are often hidden and underreported, and the figures provided by the excellent charity like Nevada are expert estimations, and I congratulate them on the superb work they do, and I wish them well in developing their national e-learning modules.

Now, the actual number, of course, is widely believed to be much higher because, as I say, many cases go unreported or are misidentified by authorities. And of course, some police forces simply do not want to add that label for the same misguided reasons. They covered up the rape of children in certain communities, because this is not a cultural problem to be tolerated or explained away simply for at least one girl, a woman murdered every month in this country. Can you imagine there are many thousands of other abuses less than murder are occurring.

It can include physical assault, emotional and psychological control, the forced marriage, female genital mutilation, sexual violence up to murder itself, and victims are often isolated and silenced by those closest to them, and the abuse can be carried out, as we've heard from noble Baroness, by multiple family members or by members of the wider community, and the honour based abuse includes violence, murder, threats, intimidation, coercion and other forms of abuse carried out to protect or defend the perceived honour of a family or community.

And honour based abuse is not a private family dispute. It's a serious human rights violation and it strips people of their autonomy, their choice, their safety. And because it's hidden, so many victims never reach out for help. And when they do, they need responses that are informed, compassionate and coordinated, and they need to be taken seriously by the police, education authorities and health service. So despite some excellent initiatives being taken by the charities and by the Home Office, I feel we're still talking about it sotto voce.

We all need to denounce aspects of honour based abuse for the evil it is, and not tolerate excuses that it is mandated by some people with a perverted misinterpretation of religion and practised by ignorant people. Let me now turn to my amendment 355. My Lords, the College of Policing already provides extensive guidance on how to identify honour based abuse. Officers are advised to look for a wide range of indicators. Control of movement. Restrictions on communication. Coercive family behaviour.

Fear. Anxiety. Unexplained absences, threats are being taken abroad and the collective involvement of extended family members. Indeed, I've just read out a small selection. I think the College of Policing have about 15 different indicators. They tell the police officers these are things you can look for, which might add up collectively to honour based abuse. I mean, if one wants a definition, you can look at the police college, the College of Policing Indicators and the suggestions by the noble Barnardo's Baroness Gohir. And there you've got a definition of all the factors which could encompass honour based abuse.

And the police college guidance is detailed, it's thoughtful and it's clearly written. It recognises that honour based abuse is not a single incident, but a pattern often hidden, often escalating and often involving multiple perpetrators acting together. But my Lords, after setting out all these excellent warning signs, the guidance stops short of the critical next step. It tells the professionals what to look for, but gives them no instruction on how to record what they found. There's no requirement to flag up an incident as honour based abuse.

There's no standardised data field. There is no multi-agency reporting framework. There is no clarity on whether a case should be logged as domestic abuse, forced marriage, coercive control, child safeguarding or all of the above. In short, the system trains police officers to try to recognise honour based abuse, but then leaves them with no mechanism to ensure the system itself recognises it. My Lords, if it is not recorded, it does not exist. About 30 years ago a Chief Constable said to me, Minister, if you measure it, we'll manage it.

Now policing today is driven by data. Safeguarding is driven by data. Multi-Agency working is driven by data. Without proper recording, patterns cannot be seen. Escalation cannot be tracked and risk cannot be assessed. A victim may present to a GP, then a teacher, then the police, then a housing officer. But if each agency records the incident differently or not at all, then no one sees the cumulative danger. My Lords, on our best abuse is precisely the kind of crime where the pattern is the risk.

If the pattern is not recorded, the risk is then invisible. The College of Policing itself emphasises that victims of honour based abuse are too frightened to speak openly. They may minimise what is happening. They may be accompanied by family members who answer questions for them. They may be monitored, controlled or threatened. That makes accurate recording even more essential. When a victim cannot safely tell the full story, the system itself must be able to piece together from fragments. But that is impossible if those fragments are not recorded in a consistent and recognised way.

At present, honour based abuse is frequently misclassified. It is logged as generic domestic abuse or a missing person episode, or a family dispute or a safeguarding concern. All of these factors may be true, but none capture the specific collective culture and escalating nature of the honour based abuse and misclassification leads to underreporting under protection and under prosecution, and it distorts the national statistics and prevents policy makers, like ourselves and the Home Office, from understanding the scale of the problem.

My Lords, my amendment 355 does not create new offences. It does not impose new burdens. It does not require new IT systems. It simply requires the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance so that police forces, local authorities, health bodies, education providers, immigration officials and voluntary sector partners all record honour based abuse in a consistent and meaningful way. It closes the gap between identification and action. It ensures when a professional sees the signs, the system sees them too. Otherwise, we cannot continue with a situation where we ask front line professionals to identify, honour, abuse and then give them no instruction as to how to record it.

Identification without recording is meaningless. It's time to make the guidance fit for purpose. An amendment does exactly that. I conclude by saying that ending honour based abuse requires courage from all of us. It requires professionals who act, neighbours who refuse to look away, and communities that reject violence and honour. It requires survivors to be supported to rebuild their lives with dignity. When we act together, either through prevention, protection, prosecution and partnership, we make it harder for abusers to hide and victims to find safety, easier for victims to find safety.
21:48
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sarfraz to support this really important group of amendments, all of them. And I know we're conscious of time and it's late, but I really wanted to come back on a few things that Baroness back on a few things that Baroness Gohir had said, and I hope that I haven't misunderstood. But I do confess to feeling a little confused. It's very clear in the history of our criminal legislation in this country that introducing previous offences regarding violence and.

Violence against women and girls has had a significant impact and made a difference. Coercive and controlling behaviour. As an example, stalking, of course, doesn't apply just to women or girls, but female genital mutilation also. In all cases, reporting increased, prosecutions increased and convictions so protections have been manifest. The same applies here. I think the reason I support wholeheartedly this group of members, and I'm very grateful for the indication from the noble Baroness Goldie that there have been conversations and that I trust that we are pushing at an open door, so to speak, on this is that declaring an interest? Myself, as well as being a barrister, I spent many years running a business, a behavioural science business and the naming of offences is extremely important in order for people to feel able to come forward with them.

There is a wealth of behavioural science, and I hope that a few of the points I can say will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Gaga, on some of the points that she mentioned around the definition, because it is so important. The reasons why we do this and the reasons why we introduce these offences matters so very much because in the context of honour abuse, so often it is defined as a family dispute or a cultural issue or something that is too sensitive for other others to name.

And it doesn't matter which culture we're talking about or which motivation. And she's absolutely right about that. But there is something in behavioural science which tells us we know from a wealth of research now that the cognitive availability, the salience, being able to name something changes the outcome. You know, we've got Kahneman and Cialdini, others talking about how we need injunctive norms in society. It is why the criminal justice system operates and works as it does so effectively.

It tells communities. It tells individuals this behaviour is not tolerated. And in you. In the United Kingdom, domestic abuse reforms have consistently shown that explicitly naming conduct, whether it is coercive control or stalking or now honour based abuse, or as it should be, really called honour based excuse, it makes it very clear that it ships police practice, community practice and public understanding. It doesn't legitimise it. On the contrary, it shows that naming it in a prohibitive framework delegitimizes it and collapses ambiguity and increases protection from all parts of the community around those victims.

People who public health. Research also shows that people seek help much more readily and quickly, when they know that their experience matches a recognised category in law. The stigma reduce is reduced. People are able to have recognition and validation of harm increases. Disclosure. Naming something operates as a community level intervention as well. We break what's called pluralistic ignorance when we name a phenomenon such as honour based abuse. But some of you may know about a study carried out at Harvard University by famous psychologist called Prentiss and Miller, and they looked at student attitudes towards a culture of drinking.

All of them thought that it was accepted by everyone else. All of them, or majority of them didn't like it. They continued to go along with it because they didn't realise that no one else, that others felt the same as they did, and that the majority view was in fact not to support it. By doing that study and revealing that they empowered the students to actually take a stance and change their own behaviours. That is now very well established psychological research, and we know that that's what communities and individuals like, the very tragic victims we've heard about today and their families who've continued to work.

We know that's why they need this legislation and these offences to be named in the way that we are seeking here today. It also increases bystander activation. People will get more involved. They will understand that there is safety and support around them when they intervene as third parties. People are much more likely to act when they can say this is illegal, this feels wrong. This is wrong. Teachers, GPS, neighbours, extended family members all then have the infrastructure within which to act.

You know, the law functions in a in a very important way, and sometimes it feels in almost a magical way. But maybe as a lawyer I would say that, but it does signal to everyone a focal point. It creates a place around which we can all convene and we can all focus. It coordinates action where previously things might have gone unsaid, where previously there may be fear about raising an issue and talking about it. Families and professionals often know that something is wrong, but fear acting alone.

A statutory definition removes that hesitation and makes it clear, very clear, where the authority and the power lies.
21:54
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Mercifully, briefly, to come at this from a slightly different direction. Four years ago, when I direction. Four years ago, when I was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we had a debate specifically about honour based abuse in the Assembly. In the part session in September 2021. And the point I want to raise is this is not a UK only phenomenon. This is an international phenomenon. And I'm putting forward the idea that there is something to be gained from looking at the experience and examples of attempts to actually deal with honour based abuse in different jurisdictions.

And in the report which the debate was about, it looked at the the sort of incidence of honour based abuse and how it is being dealt with in countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands. And that is now four years ago. So I suspect things have moved on since then. And all I would ask is that the government are conscious of that when they are looking at what is the sort of state of international knowledge currently and the degree to which we can we can benefit from that on a base.

Abuse comes underneath the Istanbul Convention, which we have finally signed up to. And within that there is an organisation called the Group of Experts on Action Against Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, which has the acronym Grevioux now has been in existence for about 15 years. And I've just checked, and I'm ashamed to say that at the moment, while there is a lot of international representation on this body, there is not a single UK representative, nor has there ever been. So I would suggest that looking at what this committee does, because it does focus very much on this area and seeing whether we could not potentially nominate somebody who could actually go and participate in that and learn from it would be would be a very good idea.

The only other thing I would say is, is in the context of the research that the rapporteur for this, who was a representative from Monaco, did, she spoke quite extensively to somebody. I suspect that the noble Lady of the Minister knows who is Nazir, Nazir Afzal, a prosecutor from the north of England who has been particularly heavily involved in this. And I think one of the things he said really, really, really struck with me. The crimes are strongly linked to cultural factors, particularly factors which strengthen male power and are aimed to prevent women making choices.

What really struck me was, he said, I met a 21 year old man, born and raised in England, who told me that a man was like a piece of gold, which you could clean if it dropped in the mud, whereas a woman was like a piece of silk which would be stained forever.
21:57
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
To speak to. Amendment three five, six in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Ducey. But, oh, first I Lady, Lady Ducey. But, oh, first I would like to apologise for my intervention earlier. I'm afraid I'm getting very grumpy. And the Christmas recess has arrived just in time. All the amendments in this group have have validity, and it might be worth trying to combine those at Report stage, because I think it's such an important issue, because when serious crimes are committed in the name of so-called honour, the law should recognise that for what it is a particularly severe and controlling form of abuse.

This particular amendment is to ensure that our justice system understands the dynamics at play in so-called honour based abuse abuse that is often collective, prolonged and enforced through fear and the threat of extreme violence. And the case of Barnardo's Mahmood illustrates this with devastating clarity. Despite reporting rape, violence and repeated threats to her life and naming those responsible, she was not protected. And after her murder, a police watchdog investigation found serious institutional failings, including a failure to grasp the specific risks posed by so-called honour based abuse.

And this amendment reflects the Women and Equalities Committee's recommendation to explicitly recognise so-called honour in sentencing guidelines to ensure an understanding of such abuse, and recognising so-called honour as an aggravating factor in sentencing, would send a clear and necessary signal that crimes motivated by perceived shame or or dishonour are deliberate acts of gender based violence. Now the. This amendment is also supported by victim survivors and specialist organisations, including Southall Black Sisters and by Banaz's sister, who has campaigned tirelessly and at huge personal risk.

However, there is one thing about all these amendments that I feel is totally wrong and we need to rethink, and that is the fact that I've been saying so-called honour. This is nothing to do with honour. This is dishonour. And that's what we should be calling it. The freedom Charity. Chaired by Anita Prem, raised this issue with me recently and they work on forced marriage and protecting women and girls, and the associated problems of dishonour based violence.

And the freedom charity says there is no honour in abuse. Using the term honour based can imply legitimacy. So we should say dishonour abuse so that shame changes sides. As Dominique Pellico would say, from survivors to perpetrators. And I think this is a fundamental point that when we talk about honour based, it's not what we're talking about. We are talking about dishonour based. And my closing words are Happy Christmas, everyone, and happy 2026 to your Lordships House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just to add my name to amendments three, five three and amendments three, five three and 355, so powerfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Sargon, with due deference to my noble with due deference to my noble friend, Lady Baroness Gohir is friend, Lady Baroness Gohir is really thought provoking input. My Lords, I'm a teacher, and before one is accepted as a teacher, one one is accepted as a teacher, one has to do five days of observation in various schools just to see if
22:01
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
he liked the look of it. My first day of observation in a school in Hackney. We were at the staff briefing at the beginning of the day, and we were reminded to be day, and we were reminded to be sensitive to the fact that the week was the anniversary of one of the was the anniversary of one of the students, mother and sister, having been killed by their father and been killed by their father and brother. And so this was my first experience of honour based abuse, and a pretty stark lesson in the responsibilities of that school staff.

Shoulder schools are uniquely placed abuse. Dirty collars can be a sign of neglect. Trainers can be a sign of grooming. Unexpected holidays could be FGM. The list goes on, and schools are often the first place that honour based abuse is visible through changes in behaviour, attendance or disclosure. Yet without a clear definition, warning signs too often missed because honour based abuse differs from other safeguarding risks. It is a frequently collective, hidden and fast escalating generic safeguarding guidance does not equip schools to recognise or respond safely.

Inconsistent understanding creates dangerous inconsistencies in response, leaving children's safety dependent on where they go to school. Statutory guidance my Lord would set a clear national standard, a lack of clarity leads to hesitation and harmful mistakes, including inappropriate family contact or mediation. A statutory framework gives staff confidence to act decisively and safely. Early identification in schools can prevent serious harm and tragic loss of life, but only if honour based abuse is properly defined and schools are properly trained, supported and embedded in a clear multi-agency safeguarding and response.

It seems logical, my Lord. I hope the government agrees.
22:04
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
That the general trend of and aims of these amendments, and I'm aims of these amendments, and I'm broadly sympathetic to. >> The group, and I agree with the need to address the problem of need to address the problem of honour based abuse. Specifically, I understand it will be difficult, understand it will be difficult, not a simple matter to define tightly. Some honour based offences are criminal offences as we know them. They involve murder and I we've heard already about the murder of banners in 2006, in Handsworth in Birmingham, where her body was, she was strangled and her body was put in a suitcase.

And and for that crime, the perpetrators were found and convicted. There is also voter impersonation, which I think we could be stronger on because it involves controlling and coercive behaviour. And one area of London with which I'm very familiar, I have been told by members of one community particularly, that they are not allowed to go to the polls and they are not allowed to vote there. My husband votes for us. All of their husbands, the group of women are there will say they will laugh at you and tell you their husbands vote for us and they're just not allowed to go to the polls.

In fact, they're not allowed to go out except accompanied by a husband or an uncle or their husband's brother. And that was a pretty specific to my mind. Coercive or controlling behaviour for grown women who were married. And but we can we have the law to deal with clear breaches of the law. And I agree that it is difficult to define abusive and coercive behaviour, which isn't immediately an offence within the law, and I therefore support the desire to define it and the need to recognise that it is.

It does exist controlling behaviour. It doesn't fall within an easily definable. Way of dealing with it, but we must address it and there are reasons to address it. For instance, with grown up people past the age of 18 where they are obliged to wear a certain sort of dress to conform to community norms, which will set them apart from their community or women I have spoken to who are not allowed to continue their education, and it's not for reasons of finance or because money is needed for a job.

They have to stay at home, and it is because there is a coercive husband, quite often at home, who does not want his wife to go out for any other reason unless or until there are children who whom she may take to school or bring to the hospital, and and any thought of continuing studies after a certain age is absolutely ruled out. Now, these are not easy to deal with. They form with, they fall within that difficult area of family arrangements and the, the, the, the rightful place.

We award the family in arranging its affairs internally. But I do think that unless we are going to become a society where different groups of people remain segregated, remain segregated socially, educationally, and in terms of the very law, and we allow borderline abuse because we don't have a definition of it to continue in the family setting, which denies the basic freedoms to certain groups of girls and indeed young women. And we must and can often lead to far worse things, as we should really try and tackle it and not.

And I would support these amendments for that reason. We need some definition, we need some guidance, and we need to cover them within the abuse framework.
22:08
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
I Lord Watts I entirely agree. said about the need to highlight this appalling practice and as far as possible, to bring it to an end. But if one's chosen means is the But if one's chosen means is the fettering of discretion of a sentencer, one has to be extraordinarily careful about definitions. And there I do rather echo what has just been said. I understand how difficult it is, but if you look, for example, at the definition in 353, that would mean that if there is an incident motivated by the perpetrator's perception that an individual has shamed the perpetrator, then the judge is sentencing.

Judge would be required to treat that as an aggravating factor. That could be two young lads outside a nightclub, and one of them has shown a compromising picture of the other, and the other feels shamed, although they may be shamed if he's going to show it. So that is how the violence begins now. The violence is is always bad and it always has to be punished. But of all the possible motivations for violence, is that really one that we're going to single out as a mandatory aggravating factor? So I must admit, I have slightly wondered whether the best way to achieve the spotlight that the noble Baroness Cash so rightly wants to place on this is is by amending the sentencing guidelines.

I thought inherent in a lot of what she was saying was perhaps the implication that there was or there ought to be a specific offence, rather, as we managed to do with with non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. But if we are going to adopt, this means imperfect and relatively low profile as it may be. We really have to be very careful about the words, because, as the noble Baroness, the Minister knows better than any of us, it's very easy to legislate for what one has in mind.

But the unintended consequences are also there. And the law of unintended consequences, I'm afraid, is one of the strongest in the statute book.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I begin by thanking my noble friend, Lady Sugg, for bringing this matter to the committee and for her eloquent elaboration of the rationale behind elaboration of the rationale behind her amendments, and thank other noble Lords for speaking, noble Lords for speaking, particularly those who recounted the stories, very moving stories of specific women who have been victims of this abuse. I think it's safe to say that this is an issue that unites us all.

Nobody wants to see any form of abuse perpetrated against women and girls. But honour based abuse is perhaps one of the
22:10
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
most pernicious forms of abuse. Due to its specific character and profile, it can all too often be swept under the carpet, hidden by communities that perpetrate it and ignored by authorities. That should ignored by authorities. That should put a stop to it. Can I welcome in particular the comments of noble particular the comments of noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for making a very important point that this is an international criminal phenomenon. It's very easy to see this within a kind of UK bubble, but I think that that context is incredibly important to remind ourselves of the many victims of of honour based abuse are left without justice because of fears of inflaming what are termed community tensions.

And that's convictions. And the reason behind these appallingly low conviction rates is because of persistent failures to recognise the unique characteristics of honour based abuse, the fact that it often involves numerous perpetrators, many of whom are family members or members of an extended community acting collectively to abuse. And in many cases, as we've heard, murder the victim. And I think it's important to recognise there has been a concerted effort recently, more recently to better recognise and respond to honour based abuse.

The government should be commended for committing, I think, on the 26th of August for legislating for statutory definition and the publication of multi-agency guidance on how to most appropriately deal with such abuse. And I think again in August this year, the College of Policing, as referenced by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, has launched a new advice notes to police forces to support officers in their efforts to identify and tackle these forms of abuse, and that followed the recommendations that emerged from the Tees Valley Super Complaint, an important investigation for many, many reasons, but especially because it found that forces police forces tended to generally only include the risk of honour based abuse in their domestic abuse policies and not in other policies, and thereby leading to an incoherent approach.

It also found that police forces generally lacked the cultural awareness to recognise the wider religious and cultural drivers behind this form of violence, and that they found that this led to police officers failing to recognise the wider risks of honour based abuse. After victims reported it. So can I commend and fully support amendment 353 and 355 from my noble friend, Lady Sugg? They are amendments which are simply attempting to put into this bill two of the measures. The government has already committed to a statutory definition, that definition that is informed by the actual experiences and the reality of the victims, as well as a comprehensive set of multi-agency guidance.

That is an important step, and the government should be commended for committing to it. But it will be of no use if the government does not speedily actually implement these measures. So I echo the sense of urgency expressed by noble Lords from across the House. This bill, I believe, is the legislative vehicle for these changes. And if they're not included in this bill, then there will likely not be another opportunity for quite some time. So to conclude, can I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to bring forward amendments at Report stage to make good on the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promise to the victims of what can only be termed as the most horrific patterns of abuse and violence. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. My Lord, can I say also that I'm grateful to the noble Ladies grateful to the noble Ladies Baroness Sugg and Baroness Doocey and the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for tabling amendments 353354355355A and 356. Can I thank 353354355355A and 356. Can I thank all noble Lords for what has been a powerful, moving and interesting debate on this subject? On a base. Abuse is a dreadful thing, and I want to add my voice to those who want to thank all the survivors for their courage and their determination in speaking out.

In fact, I remember when I received judicial training, we were told that we, as judges should refer to these horrible crimes as so called on a base to abuse in order to make it clear the point that's been made by noble Lady Baroness Jay, the noble Lord Blencathra, that there is nothing to do with honour about them. But that said, the government has listened to the preferences of survivors and the specialist sector, and for this reason I will refer to it only as honour based abuse.

I can see the lady Baroness Sugg nodding her head, the noble Baronesses and the noble Lords amendments seek to ensure that front line professionals such as the police, social workers and teachers properly understand and support this abuse and that they
22:16
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
accurately record and store this information. We absolutely share that objective. As your Lordships that objective. As your Lordships will be aware, the government has already committed as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron has reminded us, to Lord Cameron has reminded us, to introducing multi-agency statutory guidance on honour based abuse alongside statutory definition. We alongside statutory definition. We recognise that doing so is a vital step towards providing a clear framework for professionals with statutory safeguarding safeguarding responsibilities as to how they should identify on a based abuse.

And to that end, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Sugg for meeting me last week to discuss amendments 353 and 355, and also to thank Natasha Ratu of Karma Nirvana, whom I met this morning. I congratulate Your Lordship for the strength of feeling about getting this measure on the statute book as soon as possible. The government agrees that swift action is needed to ensure that professionals have a strong foundation for tackling honour based abuse, but I would just say that this is also an extremely nuanced and complex form of abuse.

We need to ensure that the range of abuse experienced is captured, and that we don't build in any unintended consequences. To use the phrase used powerfully by the noble Lord Lord Anderson. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Gohir, and we're happy to work with her in order to ensure that that that we have covered all eventualities. But, my Lords, we must do this once and we must get it right. We owe that to the victims and survivors who suffered.

I'm not able today to give a timeline for this commitment, or whether this bill will be used as a suitable legislative vehicle, but I can assure your Lordships that we are getting on with this work, and we're doing so quickly, my speaking note said at pace. But I ask the officials to take it out because it tends not to, should I say, gain favour in this House. We are doing it quickly and I can confidently commit to the government updating the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the progress of this work ahead of Report stage, and I hope that provides reassurance to various members of your Lordships' House who have raised the question of timeliness.

I now turn to amendment 355A in the name of the noble Lord Lord Blencathra, which makes the important point that we need to ensure that data collection and storage by statutory agencies is consistent and accurate. The Home Office already does require all police forces to share data on criminal offences that have been flagged as related to honour based abuse, and this is published annually. But I do agree with the sentiment of his amendment and can confirm that in developing the multi-agency statutory guidance, the government will consider how to ensure that data in relation to suspected and confirmed criminal offences related to honour based abuse is properly recorded and stored by frontline agencies.

Turning now to amendments 354 and 356, which seek to seek to add honour based abuse as a statutory aggravating factor. As your Lordships are aware, doing so would require courts to treat such offences as having increased seriousness because of the presence of this factor. And we completely agree that in principle this is a good thing. But as both noble Ladies are correctly anticipated, we do not believe that creating a statutory aggravating factor is either necessary or desirable. The reason that we think it's not necessary is that the specific elements that make honour based abuse so serious are already covered in the sentencing guidelines.

Judges are required to treat the fact that an offence involved an abuse of trust, or that the victim was vulnerable as aggravating factors. Already, in cases where the abuse is part of a domestic relationship, then there is the entire overarching guidelines specifying additional factors in which explicitly mentions honour based abuse. These amendments, therefore, would unnecessarily duplicate existing guidelines, which the courts are required by law to follow. I said it was neither necessary nor desirable, and I turn now to why it's not desirable.

I also speak from experience when I say that the workload of a Crown Court judge is an extremely heavy one, in large part due to the backlog in the Crown Courts inherited by this government. Adding to the list of statutory aggravating factors significantly adds to the workload of judges when sentencing. For every new aggravating factor, the list of items a judge needs to state that they have considered and their sentencing remarks get longer and longer, and I therefore feel strongly that we ought not continually to increase this list, especially when existing guidelines already apply.

My Lords, as the noble Lady Baroness Sugg said, these two proposed or alluded to the fact that I had said this in relation to another group of amendments earlier in the week. These two proposed aggravating factors are the sixth and seventh time that new aggravating factors have been debated in this bills committee so far, and I know that there are more proposals for different aggravating factors yet to come, as I hope your Lordships will appreciate. Our judges already have a huge undertaking as part of the sentencing process.

We wish to avoid unnecessarily burdening them or the process any further, because to do so risks lengthening individual sentencing hearings. Just at the time when we're trying to reduce the backlog. In the interests of the very victims that we're discussing, amongst others. That said, the noble Lady Baroness Sugg makes a powerful case and I would welcome further discussion with her as to how we can achieve the objectives, even if it's not necessarily by adding a further statutory factor.

And I mentioned both noble Ladies in that context. This government's priority is to strengthen identification and response through robust statutory guidance and a clear definition, ensuring that professionals have the tools they need to tackle this complex form of abuse effectively. So, on the understanding that we will consider amendments 353 and 355, which I know are the top priority for the key stakeholders. Ahead of Report stage, I invite the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Ladies and the noble Lord to withdraw their amendments. My Lord, I. Thank all noble Lords for taking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate, as I said slightly later than hoped, but it really is much appreciated. I'm grateful for the noble Lady, the Minister's reply, and as I said earlier, her openness to engage on these issues, on the aggravating factor, on the aggravating factor, I'll I'll consider carefully what the Minister had to say and look forward to having ongoing conversations on that. On the definition and the statutory guidance, I very much agree that we must ensure that it's fit for prosecution, but we also need to make sure it works for intervention to protect earlier, ideally before any crime is committed.

The definition really does, I think, need to be survivor grounded. It needs to reflect their lived experiences and must recognise the impact of multiple perpetrators, the presence of community dynamics, layered coercion and coercive and collective control. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Gohir for her contribution, and I know that everyone involved in developing the definition, increasingly dividing themselves, very keen to engage directly with her. My Lords, we have been discussing this for many years. The definition and the guidance are the crucial amendments, as they really act as the foundation for the systemic changes we need to see, and this bill really is the right place to do it.

So I very much hope that the government will bring back a revised definition and guidance amendment at Report stage that is agreed by the sector and survivors, and I will do all I can to help in that. If that's not the case, I reserve the right to return to this again. But on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 354 Baroness Sugg moved and amendment 355 not moved. So I can't call 355 a amendment 356 can't call 355 a amendment 356 Baroness Doocey not moved. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. My Lords. I beg to move the house be resumed. The question is that the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn. House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page