Lords Chamber

Tuesday 13th January 2026

(began 2 hours, 32 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Measuring success of the Youth Guarantee scheme, specifically employment and training outcomes and long-term labour market impacts
-

>> My Lords, the government's. >> Youth. Guarantee will increase opportunities for 16 to 24 year olds to. >> Make them work.
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Oral questions: Implications for the United Kingdom of the withdrawal by the United States from 66 international organisations, conventions and treaties
-

Both Oral Question Lord McConnell of Glenn Scott ODA.
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Thank you. How nice to be back here again. I oppose clauses 118, 119 and 120 standing part of the bill. These clauses introduce a pre-emptive targeting of people based on location rather than behaviour, and that should concern anyone who cares about the right to peaceful protest. Under these clauses, a senior police officer may designate an area in anticipation of a protest based on a belief that an offence is likely to occur once that designation is in place. Simply wearing an item said to conceal identity becomes a criminal offence.

This applies to everyone in a designated area. Criminal liability comes not from contact conduct, but from being in a certain place and from what a person is wearing. That's a profound shift in approach and one I cannot support. It is also a massive, broad discretion. An inspector can designate a locality for up to 24 hours, extendable on the basis of a prediction, a guess rather than evidence of immediate serious violence. The result is a huge power to ban every day protective coverings across a place at a time based only on an estimate of what might happen.

That's exactly the kind of power that leads to over enforcement and a chilling effect on protest, particularly for those who already face risks from being identified. The government may say that defences to these exist for health, religion or work, but those protections operate after arrest and charge, not at the point where the person decides whether it's safe for them to attend a protest at all. That's the key issue here. Liberty supporters have been very clear about the real world impact, one disabled person wrote.

I'm clinically vulnerable. Forcing disabled people like me to unmask is surely disability discrimination. Another said as a single woman, I do not want to be identified. Women who have experienced domestic abuse may cover their faces for the same reason. For others, including diaspora activists and those with credible fears of transnational repression and anonymity, is not a political statement but a basic safeguard. We have already seen reporting on how mask restrictions at UK solidarity protests, including those linked to Hong Kong, have deterred participation because surveillance and reprisals are very real concerns.

This then becomes about who feels safe enough to exercise their democratic rights. And I must ask, are these clauses really necessary? Police already have targeted power under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994, to require the removal of certain items, where this is justified. That power has been used in recent protest policing, including at protests outside a migrant hotel in Epping. So, Minister, what evidence does the government have of a gap in existing targeted powers that they cannot meet, rather than simply a desire for broader pre-emptive control? The government has not demonstrated an operational gap so far.

What we appear to have instead is a preference for wider pre-emptive control rather than targeted, evidence based policing. That matters because articles ten and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights are absolutely clear, any restriction on protest must be necessary and proportionate, and the Strasbourg court has repeatedly warned against measures that deter peaceful participation through fear of sanction, a clause that criminalises ordinary behaviour across a designated area without reference to a person's actual behaviour, is precisely the kind of measure that risks crossing that line.

I want to ask the Minister, will the government consider narrowing the trigger to imminent and serious violence or disorder and introducing a clear front end, reasonable excuse protection, rather than relying on defences only after arrest? If the government's concern is intimidation or disorder, then the answer is better use of existing targeted powers, not a blanket approach that sweeps up disabled people. Women concerned about safety and minority communities along with everybody else. So for all those reasons, I support removing clauses 118, 119 and 120 from the bill.

I beg to move.
15:38
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Singh I stand. >> Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, and suggest that it's vital that they do stand. >> Part of the. >> Bill, because protest is strongest when it is open, accountable and proud. A movement that hides its face borrows the language of secrecy, a movement that stands, unmask, invites public judgement and moral authority. And history teaches us, my Lords, that the most effective and morally persuasive movements were led openly. Emmeline Pankhurst marched into the public square and faced arrest, imprisonment without concealment, because the suffragette cause depended on moral clarity and public witness Arthur Scargill led the miners in mass action, visible and hidden.

Because solidarity is built on faces names, not anonymity, Martin Luther King Jr stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, all in the streets of Birmingham, with nothing to hide because non-violence and moral authority require openness. And Mahatma Gandhi led millions in acts of civil, civil resistance and a visible symbolic presence that made the movement impossible to ignore. My Lords, the government's own summary is clear about the purpose of these measures. A new criminal offence which prohibits the wearing or otherwise using of an item that conceals identity when an area designated by police under the new provisions, and that designation is constrained by a statutory trigger, a designation can only be made when the police reasonably believe that a protest may or is taking place in that area.

The protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences. These are targeted powers aimed at preventing criminality whilst protecting lawful assembly. It's not about silencing dissent, it's about responsibility and transparency. And the fact sheet also notes that the practical enforcement tool, the bill also creates a new power for the police to require someone to remove a face covering during protest. And my Lords, that power underlines the expectation that those who lead and speak for causes should be prepared to be seen and held to account.

And I quoted all the historical protest leaders, but I can bring the House much more. Up to date. Contemporary political figures continue to lead visibly. My Lords, we all have tremendous respect for the noble Lady, the Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has led a few protests in the past. I have looked at about 50 absolutely magnificent photos of the noble Lady protesting in Westminster and other areas and, and and being in the forefront of various Green Party protests. But she did say she'd been protesting all her life, but I could not find any of her as a schoolgirl at the anti-Vietnam or Aldermaston protests.

But she does have a varied repertoire stopping the police bill stop pension financing outside the Royal Courts of Justice with a banner saying neither confirm nor deny, stop fracking in Lancashire, stop dumping sewage, southwest water, renter's rights and many more with our trusty loudhailer. But my Lords, she also said that part of protest was to cause inconvenience and disruption. Well, I suggest that the three of them on the green hold it up for Gabala against Guantanamo Bay did not cause much inconvenience.

But, my Lords, the serious point, as I tease the noble Lady, is this that in every single one of her last 50 years of protest, she and her colleagues had their face uncovered, demonstrating modern political leadership in public demonstrations. So to all other organisations, I say, if the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, whom I admire as a conviction politician, can protest so, so often and so frequently with her face uncovered, then so and can should everyone else so go on.

Organisers, encourage openness, train your marshals and make sure your aims are clear. And to the police. I say use these powers proportionately and protect lawful assembly. And to the public. I say support the right to protest and expect those who lead to do so with courage and transparency. My Lords, I conclude by saying when protest is unmasked, it persuades rather than intimidates. It invites debate rather than hides behind anonymity. And that is how movements achieve lasting change. I suggest.
15:42
15:44
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I rise to agree with the noble Lord. Lord Pannick and Baroness Jay made her point so ably that I wasn't tempted until I heard, I'm afraid, Lord, that the noble Lord Blencathra is counter. It is firstly, simply a historic to suggest that the suffragettes know those protests who protesters who everybody loves now, but were once incarcerated and tortured by the British state. It is simply indeed went on hunger strike, but it's simply a historic to suggest there wasn't significant clandestine element to their to their operations.

And I'm sure that if one were to examine even other examples of the noble Lord gave, one would find greater complexity than he offered us in his his very than he offered us in his his very glib comments about protest. Just just minutes ago in this chamber, noble Lords from across the House expressed their horror at what has been happening in Iran on any given day in your Lordships House, similar comments will be made about Hong Kong or about protests anywhere else in the world.

And so I do think it is of concern that organisations that many of us respect, like, for example, justice, like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and so on are now writing really very, very concerning reports about silencing the streets of the UK. Everyone loves protesters in their own cause, whether it's farmers or or whoever it happens to be at the time, but it's other people's freedom of expression that that is, that is concerning. My speech is free and everyone else's is a little bit more expensive.

But to suggest that people don't have valid, valid reasons for concealing their appearance at protests is just to totally misunderstand the danger that people have to put themselves into to to protest on many occasions, in particular outside various embassies in this capital. I think that the provisions on face coverings in this bill are far too broadly drawn. They are of a blanket nature and existing laws that would allow police officers to require individuals to remove a face covering, for example, on when they're stopped and searched or arrested are really a really adequate and more than adequate.

As it happens, I regret that noble friends on the front bench are now on reneging on things that were said not long ago, during the passage of 2022 and 2023. Legislation in this chamber. As if as if those comments about about freedom of expression and protest were never said. In fact, the government is now going further in in all of in all of the anti-protest provisions in this part of the bill. I regret that as a general proposition.

But I do agree with the noble Lord Pannick that on the face covering issue in particular, and on and on other provisions that we will come to this afternoon and no doubt this evening that there should be more targeting. And that was that was probably what I objected to the most about the noble Lord Blencathra remarks. To suggest that may cause a problem is targeted to allow blanket designation by the police is targeted. It is the opposite of targeted. It is blanket.

It chills freedom of expression, which experts say are already being chilled in this country. And I suggest that people should take the noble Lady Baroness Jay comments very seriously indeed.
15:48
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow Baroness Chakrabarti, and I have to Baroness Chakrabarti, and I have to say I agree with everything she said. I should start by reminding the House that I have an interest as chair of Big Brother. Watch my Lords. In this group we are considering clauses 118, 119 and 120, which are not only draconian in their effect, but also very poorly drafted. I've got five questions about them for the Minister in the course of my speech, which I would ask him to respond to when he replies.

Clauses 118, 119 and 120 create a new offence of concealing identity at protest. But my Lords, as I will demonstrate, it is vital that individuals are able to preserve their anonymity at protests. And, as has already been said, other clauses in this in this bill promote the use at protests of highly intrusive and totally unregulated facial recognition technology. My Lords, we are currently in the Wild West with this mass surveillance technology. It is being used by law enforcement and private firms without any permission or regulation from Parliament, and with absolutely no oversight.

This bill contains the first mention of the phrase facial recognition in any legislation, and yet it does nothing to control or monitor its use. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this bill fails again to regulate and control this mass surveillance technology authorising its use, as this bill does, without first controlling how it is used, puts the cart way ahead of the horse. The combination of this mass surveillance and prohibiting face coverings at protests, as these clauses do have a chilling effect on people's willingness to participate in demonstrations.

My Lords, there are many categories of law abiding citizens who may prefer to conceal their identities at protests for entirely legitimate reasons. And we've heard some of them already from Lord Pannick, for example, those protesting against a foreign hostile state who fear retribution for themselves or their families, or those who prefer that their employer does not know their political views, or those who might be criticising their own religious or cultural communities or survivors of sexual violence and harassment, who need to stay below the radar, or those who simply do not wish to be the subject to mass surveillance by totally unregulated facial recognition.

Recognition technology. My Lords, anonymity is an important enabler of freedom of assembly and association. It allows participants a certain level of protection against the authorities, singling out or identifying specific individuals. My Lords, now turning to the drafting, there are some serious problems with clauses one one 8 to 120. First of all, clause 119 does not require that a person knows that they are in a designated area for them to commit an offence. This compares unfavourably with section 12 five and 14 five A of the Public Order Act 1986, which also imposes conditions on processions and assemblies, but the Public Order Act does include the requirement that at the time of the offence, I quote, the person knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

End quote. There is no such requirement in clause 119 of the bill, and so a protester who knows nothing of such designation could well be arrested and prosecuted. Could the Minister please explain why that is right? Worse still, clause 118 appears to reverse the burden of proof. That means that a defendant would have the burden, presumably on the balance of probabilities, to prove that they were wearing a face covering for health or other reasons. Why is this not the normal criminal burden or standard? This risk people being wrongly convicted on the lower standard of proof.

And this is especially concerning as the offence has such wide application. Furthermore, anyone in the locality of a protest, even if they are there for completely different reasons, wearing a Covid style mask could be caught by this offence and my Lords would not have the normal protections of the burden and standard of proof at trial. Could the Minister please explain why this is the case? Furthermore, clause 119 has no limit on the types of offences that would give rise to the power to make the designation.

This means the designation could be made disproportionately, such as on the basis of only minor offences. In addition, My Lords, there is no protection from the offence itself and the designation being circular. This means that an officer may justify a designation against concealing identity on the basis that they believe the offensive concealing identity may be committed. Another problem with these clauses is that the maximum sentence of one month's custody is the same as for the offence of refusing to remove a face covering under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

I think the Committee will agree that the conduct element of the section 60 AA offence is significantly more serious, refusing to comply with the lawful direction of a police officer, and by definition implies awareness of the condition. Unlike the new offence, it seems disproportionate that this new offence would attract the same sentence. Does the Minister agree? So, my Lords, clauses one one 8 to 120 are defective in many important ways. But in any case, even if they were better written, they would still unreasonably and unnecessarily inhibit and have a chilling effect on lawful protests.

For all these reasons, clauses 118, 119 and 120 must be strongly opposed and removed from this bill.
15:54
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
OK. >> The the clause about face. >> Coverings, I understand that I'm quite open minded about whether it's a good or a bad thing to have it's a good or a bad thing to have face coverings at protests, but just a couple of points I'd like the government to consider when considering whether to change this amendment in any way. The first thing I think the more conditions are imposed, as Lord Pannick suggested, to narrow it, which might be laudable, it will get harder and harder to enforce, and the officers on the street can only take action on what they see.

And if the person alleges that they have a member of their family in Iran or wherever it happens to be, it's going to be quite hard for the officer on the street, so it may make no difference at all to the initial action, the ongoing investigation and prosecution that might follow will then want to rebut, if they intend to, the claim that there is that defence available, so it will impose more burden on the prosecution. So I think we've got to be really careful about the conditions we impose upon it.

And my second point is just although we tend to think about face masks being worn by some people in the crowd, we could anticipate that everybody in the crowd was wearing a mask. Now, if that is the case, I think that can be quite an intimidating thing. That makes normal policing quite difficult to embark upon. For example, as somebody got a bail condition that they shouldn't attending the protest. One of the ways that you notice that is whether or not you can recognise them, but just in terms of general investigation, if everybody has a mask, it's quite difficult to distinguish one person from another, and we might anticipate some of the things we saw in the 1930s when, of course, people we have the legislation now from the 1960 36 Public Order Act, which was intended to stop people wearing uniforms.

And this could become a kind of uniform, at least an aspect of a uniform, to signify support for a political purpose. So I do think this clause, if it's to be moved forward, does need some thought, and I'm just asking for as much consideration as possible for the enforcers who will be criticised if they get it wrong. But if they're left in an invidious position, I think something we can anticipate now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the. Lord Hogan-Howe sits down. I rather agree with his concern about rather agree with his concern about how ever more protest laws are to how ever more protest laws are to be operated in practice by by by police officers who are dealing police officers who are dealing with a growing, ever more complex statute book. I wonder what he thinks about comments from the thinks about comments from the noble Lord Strasburger that the powers already exist to to to require and direct people to remove a mask which could be done to individuals.

But in the hypothetical that he gives of everyone wearing a mask as a form of as a form of intimidatory uniform, I wonder what he thinks about the fact that the power already exists. And what is a what is an officer to do? Faced with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these duplicative powers and offences? I think it's a fair question. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's a fair question. I would only say that, generally speaking, if you've got a large crowd, you've got a significant number within the crowd. You're number within the crowd. You're wearing mask. Then the chance of you telling them all to take it off are very limited. So I think the if are very limited. So I think the if I understand the proposal, then it is to prevent people arriving at the march with a mask rather than the march with a mask rather than having to deal with it once they arrive.

If you have to deal with it, you're going to have to deal with it. But that's that's the only thing I would say is that you can't having masked up, you can't then expect officers to deal with a crowd of, let's say 5 or 6000. It's just impractical. So that's the argument against it. But I understand why it's made.
15:58
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I broadly agree with the excellent comments made by the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in her moving of this, Moulsecoomb in her moving of this, and also noble Lord Lord Strasburger, I was reminded when the noble Lord Lord Carlile reminded us of the exemptions, which is that retrospectively, having been arrested or having had your your face mask removed or what have you, you can say, I was wearing this, this mask for health or reasons or work reasons or religious observance.

I think the fact that the the there is exemptions for those reasons and not for others indicates what a ridiculous situation is. Why those three things? Only as reasons why you're allowed to wear masks. But just think about it. You know. What work? Would you be allowed to wear? Masks? I mean, could you say, well, I deliver pizzas, so I've got helmets on. I mean, everybody could turn up wearing helmets. I it's to do with my work. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

And and the reason I say that is because we've heard what I just really want to emphasise that deciding to be an anonymity on a protest, in fact, in society is not necessarily the sign that you are a wrong'un, right? It doesn't mean you are free. We live in a free society, right? You can decide not to reveal your identity. When you go legally on a demonstration. You just don't want to be seen there for any number of reasons.

And actually, I've I know the noble Lord, the Minister has been on many demonstrations. He will know that, you know, there will be police officers pointing at people and so on, and identifying people as some sort of like, you know, troublemakers or something, even if you're doing nothing wrong. It's intimidating. That's the way it's used. So but I do think it is really important that I know people who are ex-muslim women who've been criticised, critical of Islamists, who don't necessarily want to be seen on a demonstration criticising Islamism.

Guess why that might be? Whistleblowers of all stripes protecting themselves from their employers, perhaps. Right. For reasons that that I don't need to spell out that really are examples these days of people being live streamed by hostile political opponents and doxed for going on demonstrations. So it might well be that you want to hide yourself. I mean, somebody did just make the I think one of the briefings that we got also made the point that it might just be that you're cold in today's conditions and wrap a scarf around.

I mean, who's going to decide what is, you know, nefarious and dubious and anything else. The main thing is, is that the police surely have the powers at the moment to deal with people that they think are problematic. And I, I do know what it's like to confront those cosplaying jihadists with their face coverings that I know are designed to be intimidating. I faced people in face masks on protests that I've been at on screaming abuse, and I can see that that's the problem that this is trying to address.

But the reality is there is a principle here of in a free society, you should be able to anonymously go on a demonstration unless you do something wrong. And if you do something wrong, then go and get on fine with me. And if there's a problem of mass but you think that they're masking up to intimidate whatever the police can, as it happens now, attempt to remove their masks. And when they were explained why they wanted this law, they said, well, we asked them to remove their masks, and then they go to another part of the demonstration and put them back on again.

And I thought, well, isn't the solution that you grabbed the mask off them? I mean, I don't I'm not very good on policing things, but I don't think we need to ban all of these masks, you know, ban anonymity effectively on demonstrations as a way of dealing with the fact that the police think there are some practical problems with the way the law is at the moment.
16:03
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I also support. Baroness Jenkin position that Baroness Jenkin position that clauses. 118 to. >> 120 should be removed altogether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

120 should be removed altogether from the Bill. Lords, my reasons are really twofold. First, I regard are really twofold. First, I regard it as wrong and unjustified to prohibit people from concealing their identities at demonstrations, just as the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley has said, let alone prohibiting anyone in a designated locality if they so wish from concealing their identities. And that's what the bill does. It's my noble friend, Lord Strasburger pointed out. The purpose of the clause is the second point can only be to enable the use of live facial recognition technology, to monitor demonstrations, to enable the authorities to determine who is attending them, and, frankly, to take action against them subsequently.

And I regard that as an offensive justification, certainly on the present state of the technology and the present lack of regulation of live facial recognition. My Lords, on the first reason overrule the prohibition of individuals concealing their identity involves introducing a big brother role for the state that is unwelcome and foreign to our notions of democratic freedom. The power may not be Orwellian in scale, but it has nasty totalitarian echoes of 1984. And we should remember that the catchphrase of the dictatorship in that novel was Big Brother is watching you.

The justified implication being that state observation of individuals is a principal instrument in the toolkit of dictatorship. No doubt that's the reason why the power to prohibit such concealment is hedged around in this bill by the complicated regime of designated localities, exempted purposes, and limited durations, and those limits on the prohibition of concealing identity are intended to act as a brake on the power. But in fact, with all the weaknesses mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strasburger Baroness Fox of Buckley and others, they emphasise how far the power is in fact a fetter on individual freedom.

My Lords, I fully appreciate that the power to designate a locality under clause 119 would arise only if a senior police officer reasonably believed that a protest was likely to involve, involve, or has involved the commission of offences, and that it would be expedient to exercise the power to prevent or limit the commission of offences. However, that has to be measured not only against the seriousness of the offences to be avoided, as Lord Strasburger pointed out, but against the right of individuals to wear a disguise which may be, as others have pointed out, a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Lord Pannick spoke of protesters against the Iranian regime. What about journalists of whatever political persuasion who wish to report on a protest but do not want to be recognised by the protesters, or the public or employees who would rather not be recognised as attending to protest, recognised by their employers. The employers may have a political objection to the cause that the protesters are pursuing. Any figure who may be publicly recognisable, who wishes to take part in, or even just to attend a protest and wishes not to be recognised, may legitimately have that right to conceal their identity.

What about parents who do not want to be recognised at a protest by their children, or adult children who don't want to be recognised at a protest by their parents? The noble Lord Lord Brownlow Lord Blencathra, relied upon the public protests of Emmeline Pankhurst and Lord Pannick Lord Pannick rightly objected to that comparison. There were countless other suffragettes who did not want friends or family to know of their support for, or activity as suffragettes in protests, for the reasons that they might disagree with their family, parents, husbands, wives, friends, or simply for concern for their own safety.

The noble Lord Lord Pannick and Baroness Chakrabarti expressed the position of ordinary citizens who wish to keep their identities private. I go further, I say that in peace time it is the right of people to keep their identities private, and the state would have to justify any limit on that power. And it has not done that. We agree. We all agree that everyone has a right to protest, but we must all acknowledge that protests can and often do involve by some the commission of offences.

But the fact that protests may involve or be likely to involve the commission of offences by some people does not justify the police or the state in denying everybody who's in the designated locality to the right to conceal their identities. And this prohibition says to people, if you take part in or attend the protest or in the locality covered by the designation, you must be recognisable. I say to the Minister, that is an unjustifiable arrogation of power by the state, and it has to be justified by the government if they wish to legislate for it, and they haven't gone anywhere near justifying that arrogation power.

My Lords, my second reason for opposing this clause is that the prohibition on concealment of a citizen's identity can only have the one purpose of enabling them to be monitored on camera, with a view to being identified later. And let us examine that, if we may. At its most benign, the power may be directed only against those who commit offences, but where there where it is for that limited purpose, then it can be argued that preventing offences by persons identified on camera may be legitimate exercise of the power of the state, but I make the points made by Lord Strasburger in connection with that.

So justice police officers justify surveillance. So the power, if it were sufficiently defined and limited, might be justifiable. But the purposes of surveillance in this bill go much further, unacceptably so. And a dictatorial state may regard it as permissible to identify supporters of a particular view or political party, or cause for the purpose of keeping them under further surveillance, or, worse still, branding them as troublemakers for the future or, at the extreme, taking action against them, ranging them from ranging from pulling them in for questioning to arrest and unlawful imprisonment.

We have seen abuse of powers such as this in countries all over the world. The current country that is under consideration is Iran, but it has happened in many, many others. We only prevent abuse of power by being astute to limit police powers and state infringement of individual liberties in the first place. And this isn't just an argument about live facial recognition technology, which my noble friend considered, and we're going to consider more about that later. But it's an important argument about the legitimate limits on state power.

Clause 118 to clause 120 come nowhere near falling within those limits. Even had they been tightly drawn, which, as my noble friend and others have pointed out, they are not. For that reason, these clauses really ought to go here.
16:12
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Here. >> It would be interesting. >> My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for tabling the stand part amendments. tabling the stand part amendments. However, we on these benches are unable to support these amendments as we have general support for clauses 118, 119 and 120. These clauses address a very real and increasingly familiar problem in modern protest policing. The deliberate concealment of identity to frustrate lawful policing and avoid accountability for criminal acts. I am sure all noble Lords have seen videos circulating on the news and online of protests, where large groups of masked or disguising their identity.

Often the only reason for this is to embolden themselves and each other to commit offences, knowing that their identification and subsequent prosecution will be next to impossible, and this undermines both the public confidence and the rule of law. Clause 118 creates a relatively tightly drawn offence, which would apply only where a locality has been designated by the police, because there is a reasonable belief that a protest is likely to involve or has involved criminality. It is not a blanket ban on face coverings.

Rather, the clause provides clear statutory defences for those wearing items for health reasons, religious observance or work related purposes. So I do not have concerns that these defences may be abused and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to provide some assurances as to how he intends that this will not be the practical reality. Clause one nine and 120 provide for necessary safeguards and structures relating to the powers of clause 118. They stipulate that designation must be time limited, based on a reasonable belief, and authorised at an appropriate level.

There are explicit requirements to notify the public of the designation, the nature of the offence and the period for which it applies. These safeguards are very consistent with other provisions of the Public Order Act that relate to police powers to impose conditions on assemblies and processions. Removing these clauses would make policing protests even more difficult, as the noble Lord. Lord Hogan-howe has already outlined offenders who attend protests with the primary intent to commit crimes, whether related to the protest topic or not, will be able to evade justice more easily.

The vast majority of peaceful protesters are unfairly associated with disorder they did not cause. Effective policing protects the right to protest by isolating and deterring criminal behaviour within it. So, my Lords, for these reasons, we cannot support the amendments in the name of Baroness Stroud.
16:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for tabling her amendments to remove clauses one one 8 to 120. The House Committee is aware of what the purpose of those clauses is, and I'm grateful for the support of the noble Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra for the broad principle of the clauses. If I could just start by referring the noble Lady Lord Jones Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb to the front page of the Crime and Policing Bill, and she will see that Lord Hanson of Flint, which is me, has made the following statement, that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights, which answers, I think the first point that the noble Lady has put to me.

And I want to also say that again, as someone who's been on protests, I want to commit the government to upholding the right to peaceful protest, but there must be proportionate to the rights of others to live, work and travel without fear, intimidation or serious disruption. And I totally reject the suggestion of the noble Lord Marks of Henley, that somehow I'm in a 1984 dystopia by producing some limits on protest. Where there is criminal action taking place, it is perfectly reasonable for Parliament to determine legislation as to how and when policing is protests, so that the right to protest is upheld at the same point as the right to enjoy life or to upheld.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so grateful. To my noble friend, the Minister, for giving way, and glad to hear for giving way, and glad to hear him restate his commitment to the Convention on Human Rights. He will Convention on Human Rights. He will know that that statement at the beginning of any bill is not a certificate of compliance, but a belief in the compliance of the of the contents of the bill. And so I the contents of the bill. And so I wonder if my noble friend could help me with, firstly, whether there has been any assessment in the Department of measures such as this in the hands of the future government, that did not share his commitment to human rights and how such powers might might be used.

And on the issue of having powers to to limit expression when offences are taking place, to quote in a couple of moments ago, may I remind him that in clause 119, which is the mechanism for designation, the the test is not that offences are taking place. It is it is about a it includes preventing the possibility of offences and and in relation to compliance. He will know that any limits on convention rights must be proportionate.

And yet the test for designation in clause 119 is not proportionality but expedience. Could my noble friend help the Committee with why the human rights language of proportionality has been substituted for the the test of expedience? And finally, could my noble friend say why it is that protest has been singled out in this way, and not, for example, carnivals or religious prayer vigils or other gatherings of people where they might conceal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their identity. I'm grateful, and there's a number of points in there. And if my noble friend will allow me, I intend to answer the points in the debate during the course of the debate. But let me just say to her debate. But let me just say to her straight away that we have published our analysis of the obligations. I can refer it to her and ensure that if she hasn't got it to hand, I'll send it to her. It is published and is available for that.

And as I'll come on to in a moment, the rights that we're seeking in this piece of legislation for both protesters, the community and the government and the police force are measured in a way which I believe is acceptable, because in recent years, policing large scale process has posed significant challenges. And the noble Lord Hogan-howe referred to that while most participants exercise their rights peacefully and lawfully, a small minority have engaged in criminal acts while concealing their identity, and it is because the police have highlighted this issue with existing powers to identify those committing offences during protests.

That we have brought these issues forward, it's essential that the police can identify those committing offences during process, not only to ensure accountability and justice, but to protect peaceful demonstrators in the wider public from harm. Now I just say to the committee as a whole that clauses one one 8 to 120 is a careful balance. It is not going to apply to all protests. It only applies to protests that have been designated by a senior police officer of inspector rank or above.

And although, as has been mentioned by a number of contributors to the committee debate, the police currently do have powers to remove face coverings in designated areas. The police themselves have said to us, and it goes back to the point from the noble Lord Hogan-howe, that those measures are not always effective. In the context of managing protests, people often comply but then replace the face covering later, which is difficult to monitor in large gatherings, and the new offence addresses this by making it unlawful to wear a face covering once a locality has been designated by a police officer, not by a Minister, not by the government, by a police officer, in the light of upholding the rights as a whole.

And I say, first of all, that that senior police officer, at least of the rank of inspector, must reasonably believe that a protest is likely to occur, that the protest is likely. And this is the critical point coming to the contributions from Baroness Fox of Buckley. Indeed, the noble Lord Hogan-howe and others is likely to lead to criminal behaviour and that it's necessary to act to prevent or reduce such offences. Now, that's an important caveat. And that's not a 1984 dystopia that the noble Lord Marks seems to in a moment, in a moment.

It's not a 1984 dystopia. It's not, you know, me becoming Orwellian. It's not the government becoming Big Brother or being all saying it is about criminal potential activity where a police officer, not the government, not this House, not the House of Commons, a police officer determines the criminal action should be taken. And if a police officer determines that that space and time that that designation needs to occur, I think that's a reasonable thing to allow protests, but also to stop criminal behaviour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord for giving way. I simply want to ask him this simply want to ask him this question. How far has the government stress tested these clauses against the test posed by clauses against the test posed by the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti as to whether, under the auspices as to whether, under the auspices of a future government, less benign than this Labour government, which than this Labour government, which I respect, and he knows that how far that stress testing has tested, for instance, how far the promotion of police officers to the rank of inspector may produce benign results, or how far the results could be Orwellian? I do not suggest that this government is Orwellian.

My suggestion is that there is potential in these clauses as drawn for bad consequences.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll say two things to the noble Lord in that defence. His presumption, therefore, assumes presumption, therefore, assumes that a police force in five years time is going to be dominated by right wing conservatives. Reform members, Socialist Worker Party members who instruct the police force to instigate that designated area. I happen to believe, and I'm sure the noble Lord Howell would. Logan Howard would agree with me, Logan Howard would agree with me, that the police force is independent of government.

It has integrity. It determines policies based on legislation. And what this does is doesn't give a police officer the power to be a political commissar of right or left. What it does is give the police the power to say there is a criminal action, potentially in this designated space, and therefore in this designated space. We need to ensure that we can remove face coverings. And, you know, if there is another government for which he fears in the future in which all of us might fear different governments of different authoritarian natures, then I'm guessing they've won an election.

They've got 400 or so members of Parliament and they can pass what the heck they like. Anyway. So there is an argument to say to him that his fears are undermining the integrity of the police force, independence of the police force. And all I'm doing in this legislation is giving the police the power to take action, should they, as the police force, determine they want to do it now? The noble Lord Strasburger mentioned that it doesn't require someone to know they're committing the offence.

Well, clause 119, section two requires the police to notify in writing that the designation has been made. It requires the nature of the offence in which the locality to which the designation applies, and to the period when it applies, so it could even be a designation in writing for a time and a limited place. But it is important that we do so. Colleagues in the House have raised the question of religious medical exemptions and further loopholes. The purpose of the new offence is, as I've said, to prevent protesters from concealing their identity in order to avoid conviction for criminal activity in the designated place.

The measure does provide a reverse legal burden on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they wore a face covering for work purposes, religious or health reasons. But as with any charge, that's a defence in the bill. In the future act in law that allows people to say that I was a paint sprayer, I was suffering from prevention of illnesses that might cause further illness if I didn't wear a mask. Or I do have, you know, potentially a religious reason to wear a mask.

That's a defence in the event of any charge being made. But again, it's a defence at the time when the police officer might well say to an individual that that mask needs to be removed. Yeah, no, I can see him. I'm just before I let him in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be that as it may. What is. Does the Minister say to all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister say to all the other categories which are not mentioned in in the clause as exemptions, that the people who exemptions, that the people who have work reasons or marital reasons or whatever, that are not reasons or whatever, that are not mentioned in those exemptions. What do you say to them about attending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protests? Are they to just avoid protests on that basis? No. There are designations we've set down in law, and there are designations that are not set down in law. But the measure, again, is a proportionate one that the police can undertake. And in the event of an individual knowing that that is happening, the individual can accordingly take their own measures and either decide to protest or not protest. That doesn't curtail the right to protest. The measure does not either ban face coverings at every protest so an individual can go to a protest.

They can wear a face covering for the reasons that the noble Lord Strasburger has outlined, and only if the police believe that the criminal actions could be taken is that area designated, and then it's a matter for the individual where I believe the majority of peaceful, legitimate protests will not be captured by this legislation and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the police must take. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord. He's making a very powerful Lord. He's making a very powerful case, but can I just ask him to focus on the defences which he's recognised? And what I don't understand is why it is a defence understand is why it is a defence for me to show that I wore a face mask because of my religion, but it's not a defence for me to prove the onus being on me that I wore a face mask because I was protesting against the Iranian regime, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have family in Iran. The noble Lord Pannick makes a point, and I hear the point that he point, and I hear the point that he makes. But the question is, we have drawn a line in the defences. That drawn a line in the defences. That is the line that we have drawn. And again, I come back to the principle that the power to be used by the that the power to be used by the police officer, not the government, the police officer, is to determine this in the event of suspected criminality occurring.

And there may not be in the case that the noble Lord has mentioned the need for that designation, because the police may take a judgement, which is their judgement, to make that a protest outside. For example, the Iranian embassy would not lead to potential criminal activity. That is the judgement that we're making. That's the line that we're drawn. I you know, I note the point that he's made, but that's the defence that I can put to him today because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to noble Lords Minister, may I say, I very much support what may I say, I very much support what you are saying. The only question is, will the police have the power is, will the police have the power not to require him to take his mask not to require him to take his mask off if they accept his view that that would cause some danger to him because of his or his family in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iran. The exemptions in the bill are very clear. And again, the exemptions in the bill I've talked about already relate to religious work or health reasons. Now, again, police officers will make a judgement on the ground and the police officers are again in the noble Lord Howell Hogan House experience have a significantly difficult job to do at any demonstration, and they will have to make a judgement on those issues on the ground. But if I can give any comfort to both the noble Lord Pannick and to the noble Lady as well, that all of the offences under this Bill are currently under review by the noble Lord Macdonald of River Glaven as part of the current review, which is undertaking to complete by spring 2026.

And I have no doubt that he will pay close attention to the comments that are made in this debate as well, and make an assessment to government about whether the points made by noble Lords are ones that he should reflect upon. But I would say to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the committee, sir. Yeah. Astonished by that statement,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Astonished by that statement, I'm afraid. Are you saying that we should pass we should knowingly pass faulty legislation because we pass faulty legislation because we know that Lord McDonald's will pick it up and sort it out later. Is that what you're saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that what you're saying. Now? The noble. The noble Lord opposes the whole clauses altogether, doesn't he write, the altogether, doesn't he write, the noble Lord opposes the clauses, am I right? Right, well, I don't right? We have a difference of opinion on that. This is what Parliament's about. At Report stage. We may have a vote on it. I've heard the support of the noble Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra and others. I would seek their support in the division, and that House will determine what the House of Commons has already determined, whether those clauses are right or wrong for inclusion.

But what I'm saying is, on all occasions, there are always things that can be looked at and examined. And if the noble Lord panics, points are worthy of consideration. We will have opportunities to have those reviewed because the noble Lord Macdonald of River Glaven is going to produce a report for the Home Secretary on protest generally, and I can't say what he's going to say or how he's going to say it, or what recommendations he's going to make, or whether we accept those recommendations.

I've simply said to the noble Lord today, I believe the clause is 118119 and 120 should stand. He doesn't. I believe that they're right and proper and effective, and they've got powers for the police to do business in a coordinated way to prevent crime. I do, he doesn't. And there are points that have been made today which no doubt the noble Lord MacDonald will reflect on and may make recommendations to government accordingly. And we may make issues later on. But I would say to him now, and to anybody else in the committee, that these powers are ones that the police have asked for to ensure better policing, to prevent crime that are compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights.

In my view, they are proportionate and they provide a mechanism to ensure that people who are potentially at protests, who commit crime, do not commit those crimes without any understanding. I'll just come back to one final point before I give way to my noble friend. The noble Lord Strasburger also talked about facial recognition. He will know that later on in this bill, we deal with issues to do with facial recognition. And he would also know that the government is currently undertaking a consultation on facial recognition, pending comments from anybody who wishes to make them pending.

Therefore, better regulation of how any facial recognition is utilised in later legislation at some future point post this bill. And so I would say to him, you know, whatever concerns he has on facial recognition, I believe it's still a valuable tool for policing, but we can examine those at some point downstream and there will be an opportunity to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test his views versus the houses at some point. Hon. Friend. I'm so grateful to you, to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so grateful to you, to my noble friend, for his detailed responses and for his patience in taking interventions. And could he, taking interventions. And could he, in a moment, deal with my point about why the word expedient has been used in clause 119 rather than been used in clause 119 rather than proportionate? Because he himself has talked about proportionality many times. And of course he will many times. And of course he will know that the test for lawful interference with convention rights is proportionality rather than expedience.

And in the light of comments made in this committee by by noble Lord, such as the noble Lord Pannick, who doesn't who doesn't oppose the provision outright, would he consider just consider between now and report adding to the defences an additional defence of fear of reprisal, adding that to the health provision, for example, I wonder if he might just consider that going forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, well, the for my noble friend, the wording in the bill is the wording the government have the wording the government have agreed, and that is the position that we take, and we may have a disagreement on that. If she wishes to put an amendment down at report to change that wording, that's a matter for her. That's the wording that we've come to an agreement. that we've come to an agreement. She's made a further suggestion about a further defence. Those are about a further defence.

Those are matters that I would suggest that should be considered by the Lord Macdonald of River Glaven as part of the discussion that we've had to date. If she wishes to expediate that quickly, she has the opportunity with anybody else to table an amendment at report. But the government has given serious consideration to this. Clauses 118119 and 120 are the result of those considerations there at the request of the police. They are proportionate. They are, in my view, compliant with human rights. And I commend them to the House and would in a gentle way, urge the lady not today or indeed in future to seek to withdraw them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lord sits down. I happen to support, actually, I I happen to support, actually, I happen to support this particular clauses. I've still got the same clauses. I've still got the same concern as a noble Lord Pannick that have you drawn this rather too that have you drawn this rather too narrowly, that there may be areas that you may have to consider? that you may have to consider? Secondly, again, you're quite right. The clauses give this power to the police in order to prevent crimes being committed.

What happens if the police get it wrong? We all know what has happened with Sarah's Law reasonable grounds to suspect,
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page