Lord Hanson of Flint
Main Page: Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Hanson of Flint's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her kind comments at the beginning—if I blush, that is the reason why. I appreciate them.
I hope that this debate will be undertaken in a way that respects different views, but there is a significant difference of opinion between noble Lords who support this amendment and those who do not. That is fair, proper and right. This House and the House of Commons are places to debate those issues, and I will try to do so in as friendly and constructive a way as possible while sticking to my firm principles that the Government’s amendment is the right thing to do.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Cashman; the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Herbert of South Downs, Lord Paddick and Lord Pannick; from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green. I think that that spread of opinion from the Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Government Benches and, indeed, the Conservative Benches shows that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, has argued again today. He did so in Committee. I accept his view as his view. He wanted, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, to row back on all aggravated factors in his amendment. He accepts that. I have no argument about his right to do so, but I do about my position on where I accept it. There is a real debate between us.
I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who have raised this issue that this amendment is not about non-crime hate incidents or offensive tweets; it is about serious offences such as actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking and criminal damage where a prison sentence would be given by a judge on conviction. If the judge, having heard the evidence of the prosecution and witnesses in that trial, believes that the harassment, stalking or actual bodily harm was generated not just by two people meeting in a pub and having a fight but by somebody turning up in that pub, having a fight and suffering actual bodily harm because the individual was a different colour, race, religion or sex—or because they dressed in a transgender way, because that is what they chose and that is the way they live their life—that is something that, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put his finger on, a judge should take into account when giving a sentence of up to the maximum potential sentence under the law.
That is because the law will say that it was not just an argument or stalking offence or harassment because of a general factor; it will say that the principal direction of that harassment, stalking or grievous bodily harm was because of a transgender characteristic, disability characteristic, racial characteristic or misogyny. I draw a line in the sand on this and say that this House, the Government and Parliament should stand up for those people who face that kind of activity. That is a reasonable position to take.
The amendments strengthen support and protection for victims. No one will go down for a tweet or a non-crime hate incident under this; they will go down because they committed a serious offence, and they will get an aggravated sentence because they did it for a reason that this society should not tolerate.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am asking a question; is that allowed on Report? I want just to clarify: when the Minister says a tweet versus a serious offence such as a public order offence or harassment, will he accept that that can be a speech crime? I have never mentioned tweets. It is serious if you get sent to prison for a speech crime. That is why there is concern about speech.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are going to have a whole debate at some point in the next couple of weeks on non-crime hate incidents involving the type of issues that we are debating. I am putting the case for the Government. That is my view, it is what we are saying, and I have had support from people who have been political opponents in the past, people who I share political views with, opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. That is a reasonable coalition that has said that this is the right thing to do.
Genuine points have been raised about the tabling of this amendment at this late stage on Report. I say three things in response to that. First, this is a manifesto commitment. Secondly, the Law Commission report in 2022 developed this. It is a complex area of criminal law and has been a long time in gestation. Had we been able to draft an amendment that met the objectives we set then I would have tabled it in Committee, but we have drafted and tabled it now after a long period of gestation.
I also say to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rooker, that it was announced at Second Reading in the House of Commons that we would bring this amendment forward. In Committee in the House of Commons, an amendment was tabled from the Back Benches by Rachel Taylor, MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to meet the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment. The House of Commons debated that amendment and the Government said they accepted it in principle but needed to look at it in the context of the Law Commission and its drafting. After a full debate in the Commons, we accepted the amendment and have brought it back.
At Second Reading in this House, I took great pride in saying that we would bring the amendment back. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, he tabled an amendment in Committee that would sweep away every aspect of race and other protected characteristics. That is his view. In my argument against that view during the discussion we had in Committee, I said to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that I would table an amendment on Report and that we would debate it. We have had two and a quarter hours on this debate so far today. We may have a Division on it, on which I hope to get support from other colleagues. But I say to all noble Lords that this is an important issue.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would, in essence, water down that proposal. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, would water down that proposal. The amendments seeking to strike out the offences in Clauses 122 and 124 of threatening emergency workers would mean that individuals could abuse emergency workers on a racial basis. That is simply not acceptable to me, the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats, Members of the Conservative Back Benches and the Cross Benches. It might be a legitimate view, and I will not deride that view, but is not one I will ever share. I say to my noble friends: join me in that Lobby—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti reminds me that I have been in this House for just under two years now and have voted only once in the Lobby on that side of the Chamber.
Tonight, I ask my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join me to vote for this amendment, because it does what the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, said: it says to people who have protected characteristics, “Society is on your side”, and if you are picked out because of that characteristic, we will make sure that the people who pick you out pay a penalty for that if the judge in that trial determines that, having had a guilty verdict, your motivation was one that attacked protected characteristics. If it is good enough for people who are Jewish, Muslim or Black, it should be good enough for trans, disabled and other people. That is why I take great pleasure in asking my noble friends to join me in this Lobby any moment now to vote for this amendment. I hope that all noble Lords who support the principle will do so.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and, on the basis that I have understood him correctly that none of these amendments or the Government’s intention of commencing the new Clause 4B of the Public Order Act is intended to encourage the police to investigate misgendering on social media—I can see the Minister is nodding—I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Guidance about honour-based abuse(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about honour-based abuse to such public authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2) Guidance under this section may include guidance about—(a) the prevention of honour-based abuse;(b) the identification of honour-based abuse;(c) the collection and sharing of information about honour-based abuse;(d) how public authorities should work together in relation to honour-based abuse.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) A public authority to which guidance under this section is given must have regard to the guidance when exercising its public functions.(5) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance.(6) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance.(7) Subsections (3) to (6) apply to any revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.(8) In this section “public authority” means a person exercising public functions, other than a court or tribunal.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers a power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities about honour-based abuse.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee—and I am grateful for the comments made at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and others urged the Government to grasp the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deliver on the Government’s commitment to introduce statutory guidance to assist front-line practitioners in tackling honour-based abuse by supporting a statutory definition of such abuse. I am pleased to say that we agree that this is not an opportunity to be missed. The Government have tabled Amendments 339 and 340 in response to comments in Committee to deliver on the Government’s commitment.
Amendment 339 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on honour-based abuse. This guidance will sit alongside the statutory definition, operationalising it by clearly setting out expectations on prevention, identification, information sharing and multi-agency working across policing, health, education, social care and other safeguarding partners. Public authorities will be required to have regard to this guidance, meaning that professionals must factor it in to how they carry out their existing duties and safeguarding responsibilities.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her determined and tireless work on honour-based abuse. I know that the Government had intended to bring forward a statutory definition at some point, but it is purely down to her efforts during the passage of this Bill that we are discussing it today, and she fully deserves the commendation she has received this evening.
I will not repeat the points of my noble friend’s speech but simply reiterate that we plainly welcome the introduction of a statutory definition. I hope it will help in getting justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. I also offer my support to her amendment, which aims to provide legal clarity and remove ambiguity about the nature of honour-based abuse. It can take a wide array of forms, but a common trend among them is that it is often committed by families and community groups. My noble friend is, I think, simply seeking clarity on the Government’s new provisions so as to provide explicit confirmation of the position.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her Amendment 340A, which has had the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Verma, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I understand where she is coming from and I will try to explain where we are and how we can interpret her point.
On the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Lord Mandelson, formerly of this Chamber, I do not think that now is the appropriate time for me to comment on that—first because a number of potential legal cases are going on, and secondly because I do not conflate anything that will or will not face Lord Mandelson with the horrors that people have faced with honour-based abuse. The noble Lord has made his point, but I will not respond to it today.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I merely chose it as an example that we would all be aware of. It seems to me that the clause as drafted catches a lot of people who should not be caught by it. I will write to the noble Lord, if he will allow that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always happy to have letters—or, potentially, one of those newfangled things, an email—from Members of this House. If the noble Lord wishes to send something through, I shall happily examine it with my colleagues.
The contributions in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, rightly emphasise the need for clarity and to ensure a proper definition that covers situations where multiple people are involved in perpetrating abuse. I completely agree that the definition must reflect both the survivor experience and capture multiple perpetrator contexts. However, I put the caveat to her that we have to be careful that what appears a straightforward change to the wording does not create drafting ambiguity in itself or add complexity that would hinder practitioners. As I stated in my opening comments, as drafted this amendment covers a situation where there is more than one perpetrator. I am happy to put on the record that the Government will also make that clear in the Explanatory Notes and the statutory guidance, to be published in due course, so that front-line practitioners understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators. Again, I hope that that goes to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool.
I understand and recognise the noble Baroness’s point but, again, the Home Office wants fully to consider the impact of the amendment. However, I hope the statement I have given from the Dispatch Box—which, again, for ease of practice, is that front-line practitioners can understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators—is clear. I hope that, with that commitment, these government amendments will ensure that we have a significant milestone in strengthening the Government’s response to honour-based abuse, but more importantly that the public authorities have the tools, guidance, understanding and clarity they need to ensure that we provide a better overall multi-agency, victim-centred response.
I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. A number of noble Lords have referenced organisations outside Parliament that have campaigned long and hard. I pay tribute to them and share their objectives. I hope with those comments that the amendments that I have tabled can be moved—
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is great to hear that the Home Office is considering how this might impact the legislation. However, I do not think I have heard exactly what harm this might do or why it is allowed in other legislation but not in this. I therefore wonder whether the noble Lord might consider bringing it back at Third Reading, if the Home Office is able to find a way to get the provision concerning multiple perpetrators into the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I always try to be as clear as I can from this Dispatch Box, when I can. I simply say to the noble Baroness that the Government would not want to table any amendments to the Bill at Third Reading. We want to try to ensure that the discussions we have had are complete and that Third Reading is a relatively straightforward procedure. So I cannot offer her that comfort, and I might as well tell her that now. But I am also saying, notwithstanding the points she has made, and in the light of the guidance we are going to produce, that I hope the interpretation I have given, which I think reflects the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is one she can accept. I shall move my amendments, but I also ask her in due course not to press hers.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Meaning of “honour-based abuse”(1) For the purposes of section (Guidance about honour-based abuse) “honour-based abuse” occurs where—(a) a person (“A”) engages in abusive behaviour towards another person (“B”) who is a member of A’s family or is a relevant connection of A, and(b) A is motivated wholly or partly by A’s perception that B has behaved, is behaving or may behave in a way which—(i) shames or dishonours A, B, A’s family, B’s family or A’s community, and(ii) does not comply with the accepted norms of behaviour in A’s community.(2) The reference to A engaging in abusive behaviour towards B includes A causing another person to engage in abusive behaviour towards B.(3) A person’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).(4) Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of—(a) physical or sexual abuse,(b) violent or threatening behaviour,(c) controlling or coercive behaviour,(d) economic abuse (see subsection (5)),(e) spiritual abuse,(f) psychological or emotional abuse, or(g) other abuse,and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.(5) “Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to—(a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or(b) obtain goods or services.(6) A person is a member of another person’s family if any of the following applies—(a) they are relatives,(b) they are, or have been, married to each other,(c) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other,(d) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(e) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(f) they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with each other, or (g) they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child,(and references to a person’s family are to be read accordingly).(7) A person is a relevant connection of another person if they are friends or acquaintances who are known to each other in person.(8) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g) a person has a parental relationship in relation to a child if—(a) the person is a parent of the child, or(b) the person has parental responsibility for the child.(9) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“civil partnership agreement” has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004;“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see section 3 of that Act);“relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause defines “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of my new clause (Guidance about honour based abuse), inserted after clause 121.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3) The conduct of a person (“D”) is hostile towards another person (“E”) if—(a) at the time of that conduct, or immediately before or after that time, D demonstrates towards E hostility based on—(i) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of E,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of E,(v) E being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(vi) the sex (or presumed sex) of E, or(b) D’s conduct is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation,(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender, or(vi) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the kinds of hostility relevant to an offence under clauses 122 and 123 to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and sex.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(5) In subsection (3)—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership”, in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by D.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for setting out his amendment on the issue of controlling or coercive behaviour by psychotherapists and counsellors. I fully understand the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in support of it. I am pleased in some ways—and in other ways I am not—that the noble Lord has managed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to back his cause. However, while I accept that there are concerns in this area, I am sort of with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one.
The amendment seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients, mimicking a similar offence in the domestic abuse context. I understand the need for that, as explained by the noble Lord, and I fully recognise that those who seek psychotherapy and counselling services may be vulnerable. As the noble Lord knows, psychotherapists and counsellors are not statutorily regulated professions in the UK. However, there are other safeguards in place for the public to acquire such services with confidence.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of King’s Heath said in Committee, this is a complex area where there is an overlap of roles and titles. It is difficult to differentiate between and reach agreement on defining what these specific roles are, be it psychotherapist, counsellor, therapist, well-being coach, talking therapist, mental health practitioner, lifestyle mentor, family coach or spiritual healer—the list could go on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on, regulation is not always the answer. Quack and unscrupulous practitioners can, as has been described today and during previous debates, easily refer to themselves as something slightly different to avoid any proposed new offence, and regulation does not define the scope of practice.
In Committee, I heard the request for the noble Lord and supporters of the amendment to meet the relevant Minister at the Department of Health. I was pleased to facilitate that discussion, which I know took place on Monday—though there still appears to be a gap between the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my colleague Karin Smyth MP.
The amendment as it stands is intended to protect vulnerable people from rogue practitioners who call themselves psychotherapists or counsellors, but it does not include a legal definition of counselling or psychotherapy services. I respectfully submit that the amendment is not the right route to take, in the light of that issue.
As I and my honourable friend the Health Minister in the Commons have said, the Government are focused on managing the underlying risks. We are ready to work with sector partners to commission a formal assessment of the oversight of such therapies in order to understand current risks as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguards and whether they need to be strengthened to protect the public better. As I mentioned in Committee—I will repeat it again for the noble Lord—if the Government are satisfied that the conditions for the regulation of a profession are met then they can take action through secondary legislation under existing powers in the Health Act 1999 to make changes and to bring into effect criminal offences relating to a person’s registration with a professional regulator.
I openly and honestly say to the noble Lord that we cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that there is some comfort from both the meeting and the direction of travel that I have set out on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I am not content to withdraw my amendment.
First, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for highlighting how the opinions of the public may be affected, and the fact that the reputations of psychotherapy and counselling services, which are of value and honestly provided, may be tainted by the dishonest quacks who have absolutely no right to be practising—as a matter not just of regulation but of plain, honest practice—because they are there to take money from innocent clients. My view is that the definition of
“providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services”
is wide enough to catch those quacks.
Secondly, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for reconsidering the opinions he expressed in Committee. That is what the gap between Committee and Report is for—to give us all a chance to think—and I am grateful to him for his change of mind and his support for the amendment.
I simply did not understand the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I understood the Minister’s objections when he talked about regulation, but he does not seem to have taken on board my point—which is central to all this—that regulation for the purposes of a new criminal offence is simply a red herring. What is important here is creating a criminal offence to catch dishonest people who are quacks, who are taking advantage of vulnerable people by coercive and controlling behaviour, and who ought to be punished for doing so. Others also ought to be deterred from doing so.
With some regret in view of the hour, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment; I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving Amendment 359. I know that she has been pursuing it with tenacity. This amendment and Amendment 361 relate to the Government’s proposal to create a specific, stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker at work. I want to be clear from the outset that it is already an offence to assault a retail worker, because it is an offence to assault any person, full stop. That is the law. I do not believe that criminal law should treat anyone differently based simply on whether they are a retail worker. I fully recognise that retail workers face an appalling level of abuse and violence in the course of their jobs, but to say that the creation of a new, specific criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker will stop assaults on retail workers is, frankly, for the birds.
What will stop these assaults, or at least reduce them, is the police stepping up enforcement, and the Government stopping the release of criminals and handing anyone convicted of these offences suspended sentences. However, the Government clearly believe that creating this new offence will reduce violence against retail workers. If we are to take their logic to its conclusion, why would we not extend the offence to cover all public-facing workers? Does the Minister believe that transport drivers, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Stowell and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are of lesser value than retail workers? If the Government believe that this new offence will work then why do they not believe it will work for other public-facing workers?
My noble friend’s amendment exposes the absurdity of the Government’s position. They argue that violence against retail workers is a significant problem that needs to be tackled, which is absolutely correct, but then propose a solution that they refuse to extend to other workers who also face significant levels of violence at work. There is simply no logic to the Government’s approach. Either they believe that creating a new offence for specific groups of people will reduce violence against them or they do not. They cannot argue both. I would prefer that we did not have any new offences that outlawed things that are already outlawed and that we did not legislate to criminalise actions towards specific groups of people but not others. That would be my preference, but if we are to do these things, then we must take them to their logical conclusion. For that reason, I support the amendments from my noble friend.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment, and for the opportunity to discuss it with her and with the organisations she brought in for face-to-face discussions with us. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for his contribution and for our meeting.
I declare my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which I joined 47 years ago and which sponsored me as a Member of Parliament. I put that on the record. I must also say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I understand that he would prefer to have no offence. I understand that because when, as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, I tabled amendments to put these types of offences down, the then Government rejected them. I therefore understand where he is coming from, because that is consistent with the position of previous Conservative Governments.
In this case, we have a Labour manifesto commitment endorsed by the electorate. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned USDAW. I pay tribute to that union, which has collected evidence and, through three general secretaries, including my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, campaigned strongly for an offence against retail workers. The Labour Party listened to that in opposition and put in its manifesto—I cannot claim credit for this, because I was out of Parliament at the time—a commitment to legislate for that offence, which appears in the Bill before the House today.
I have heard the comments from the noble Lord, Hogan-Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on why they think that the bespoke offence against assaulting a retail worker should be extended to all public-facing workers. Along with proposing a new broader offence of assault against public-facing workers, the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment that would place a duty on courts to make a criminal order in the event of a conviction.
I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but I repeat the arguments that I put to her in Committee and elsewhere. Public-facing workers such as those mentioned by my noble friend, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, are covered under existing legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes a range of violent offences, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Further, the provisions of Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, makes it a statutory aggravating factor of assault against any public-facing worker. That offence means that if someone, having been charged with the serious offence of assault and having gone through a trial, is deemed to have committed assault against public-facing workers, the court has the power to add aggravating factors to that sentence. That covers every type of worker that has been mentioned by noble Lords today. The aggravating factor applies in cases of assault where an offence is committed against those public service workers performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. That is an important factor.
Noble Lords have asked why there is a specific offence against retail workers that is additional to the aggravating offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. In clauses that have been mentioned there is provision for additional prison sentence capacity, criminal restriction orders and an unlimited fine for this stand-alone offence. Retail workers are still covered by Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, so why have we put that extra power in place?
The reason for this—and why I declared an interest—is that USDAW has, to my knowledge, for 17 or 18 years campaigned regularly for this in the Freedom From Fear Campaign. It has done so under the three general secretaries that my noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned, and it has done so for a purpose—one that the Government share. Retail workers are fundamentally on the front line of upholding the laws passed by both Houses of Parliament on a range of matters. It is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of cigarettes, it is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of alcohol, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a knife, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a solvent, and it is a retail worker who protects the community by upholding all the laws on those issues that we have passed in this House and in the House of Commons. That is why USDAW campaigned for the specific offence, and it is why the Labour Party in government has been pleased to support the creation of that offence by putting it in the Bill.
That goes even further to the appalling shop theft situation. I do not call it shoplifting—it is shop theft. There has been a continued rise in shop theft over many years, and it is the retail worker who is on the front line saying, “Put that back”, calling the police and taking action in the shop. The Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and a whole range of retail organisations have campaigned for this, alongside USDAW, over many years. It has been thought through and there is an evidence base. It is a manifesto commitment, and we are trying to introduce that extra offence. I do not wish to see a train operative or members of customer services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, attacked with a knife. This is covered by common assault legislation from 1861 and by the 2022 Act as an aggravating offence. But the Government have put forward a stand-alone offence for shop workers for the reasons I have outlined.
Does that potentially create an anomaly? Let us discuss that and reflect on that view. But the manifesto commitment is clear, and we are delivering on that manifesto commitment. This is an important issue, based on evidence and campaigning by a range of bodies—retail organisations and trade unions—and it has my support. Therefore, I cannot support the noble Baroness—I have told her that—or my noble friend.
That is not to say that the Government accept that attacks on those members of staff are a normal part of what they should face. We are committed to driving down assaults and to enforcing, with the courts, the legislation on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked what the Government are doing to reduce the attacks in the first place. This Government are rebuilding the police force—13,000 neighbourhood police officers—and have put in place, with this Bill, changes in shop theft legislation. This Government are focusing on retail crime in hotspots and on making sure that we drive it down. We will ensure that the police forces have retail crime as a major priority.
In the last 14 years before July 2024, police numbers fell, neighbourhood policing fell and the focus on the high street fell. It was not a Labour Government but a Conservative Government who did that. They refused the legislation on assaults on shop workers that I proposed in the House of Commons, they refused to take action on shop theft on high streets and they refused to stand up for the workforce. With due respect, I will not take lessons today from the Conservative Front Bench.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
May I check whether my assertion is accurate or whether I am wrong? Would someone enforcing an age limit in a betting office not be protected by the retail workers’ protection but someone enforcing an age restriction in an off-licence would be? It seems to me that the distinction is simply between providing a service and providing a good. If I am wrong in that, I withdraw my comment, but I am not sure that the Minister has said I am.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have clearly defined in the Bill what we believe a retail worker is. I accept that there are areas of interpretation for the courts, such as, for example—we have discussed this with colleagues outside the House—whether a post office is covered by the retail worker provision. Somebody might walk into a post office to buy Christmas cards or birthday cards and go to the post office counter—is that a retail worker? Those are areas where there may be some interpretation, but we have identified this as tightly as we can. It is a straightforward clause that defines a retail worker. I commend it, given that there has been a considerable amount of work by the Home Office in drafting the amendment, after a considerable amount of work by retail organisations and trade unions to develop the campaign.
I go back to my point that all attacks on all staff are unacceptable. Other areas are covered, but the reasons I mentioned on the specific provision of upholding legislation are why we have put in a specific offence against retail workers. That is why I commend those clauses to the House. I ask the noble Baroness—although I understand that she cannot do this—at least not to push her amendment to a vote.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I think there was appetite among many of us to see the beginnings of a strategy for each sector that we know is facing rising violence. I know that that is not within the gift of the Minister, but a request to talk to Ministers and get people around the table in those sectors so that we can deal at a strategic level with the causes of violence, as well as big issues such as resources for enforcement, would go a long way to give comfort to people that this is the beginning of a conversation about how we deal with violence against working people.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to the House, I do not support, encourage or condone any violence against anybody under any circumstances. The public-facing workers are covered by two pieces of legislation; we are adding a specific offence for retail workers, for the reasons I have outlined. I have met personally with a range of bodies that the noble Baroness has brought before us. I understand that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill has met organisations and met and discussed issues with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is here today, and will continue to do so. However, this campaign on the clauses in the Bill has been a long time in gestation—it has taken 15 and 16 years to get where we are today—and I want to get them over the line, so I cannot accept the amendments that the noble Baroness has introduced. I ask her to withdraw her amendment but if she puts it to the vote, I shall have to ask my noble friends to join me in voting against it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s amendment, which would remove the word “alarm” from the relevant sections of the Public Order Act. I entirely support his aims. Alarm is not an emotion that should be policed, if emotions should be policed at all. The Act in question has been used for the unprecedented policing of speech that we have seen recently, for which Sections 4A and 5 have been largely responsible, and any measure that weakens the effect of this law is welcome. So, although I am sceptical that he will, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. We will therefore have another opportunity to look at the offences in the Public Order Act 1986 and to reflect on the balance we must continue to strike between free expression and ensuring public safety.
The Government remain firmly committed to protecting freedom of speech. The ability to voice strong and at times uncomfortable views is fundamental to democratic life. However, as I set out in Committee, the ability to intervene early is an important tool for police to protect both the public and those involved, a point that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson, will accept. The definitions in the 1986 Act, passed by a previous Conservative Government, including the words “alarm” and “distress”, are there so that there can be early intervention and examination, and so that people who feel “alarm” and “distress” can have that support.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has also referred to the review of public order and hate crime legislation led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. Government has given it the task of examining the threshold definitions of public order legislation, which are needed to protect the public, while ensuring that we do exactly what I know the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wants to do: ensure that we do not have undue interference in freedom of expression. The review is expected to conclude in the spring—it is a flexible definition, as we know, but it will be in the spring—and the Government will carefully consider its recommendations before determining whether legislative change is necessary.
I cannot commit to where we are on that because we have not seen the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. Given the circumstances —and given that the Act is now 40 years old and has stood the test of time from Mrs Thatcher’s Government to those of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, however many Conservative Prime Ministers held the office between 2010 and 2024, and my right honourable friend the current Prime Minister—it strikes me that it is a sound piece of legislation. It has stood the test of a number of Prime Ministers and Governments. With the review pending, I hope that we can examine and look at all those issues. With those comments, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
It gives me inordinate pleasure—it warms the cockles of my heart—to listen to the Minister praising the legislation of the late Baroness Thatcher in her pomp. We do not often get that, but we should be grateful for small mercies.
We have had a short and interesting debate. I take in good faith the comments of both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her contribution was very thoughtful in really drilling down into what the word “alarm” means. I think the debate we had in Committee was about the consistent nature of a criminal offence. That is harassment and distress: if someone harasses or threatens someone on a consistent basis. It is different from a momentary issue that might arise.
I say that because we have seen too many examples of where individual police officers, who may not have had appropriate training and education in interpreting these pieces of legislation from the 1980s, have, in my opinion, overreached. That has a very corrosive impact on the faith and trust that the public have in the police force. It leads them to believe that there is such a thing as two-tier policing, which is not good for any of us.
I take on faith what the Minister said. I look forward to what I think will be a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. On that basis, we will no doubt return to this specific issue and piece of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) a device which is capable of using five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably, for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1A), or(b) an article specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(1A) The purposes are—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify different articles as SIM farms in regulations.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the kind of articles that the Secretary of State may specify under clause 132.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his amendment regarding cloud-based services and access restrictions for lost or stolen devices. As my noble friend said, a similar amendment to the one before us was presented in Committee, during which it was pleasing to see Cross-Bench support from noble Lords on this proposed solution to an increasing problem.
Mobile phone theft is now a high-volume and high-impact crime. It is particularly prevalent in urban areas, obviously, and can often cause distress to its victims, as well as financial loss. Rather than simply creating new offences or imposing more severe punishments, we must address the current incentives that sustain the criminal market for stolen mobile devices. As was our position in Committee, we must act to remove the profit motive that fuels this behaviour in the first instance.
Amendment 368 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson seeks to achieve that precise goal. By requiring providers to take reasonable and timely steps to block access to services once the device is verified as lost or stolen, stolen phones would no doubt be less valuable on the resale market. This would result in the substantial removal of the economic rewards that drive organised and individual phone theft. The blocking of access to cloud synchronisation and authentication services would plainly strip stolen devices of much of their value to criminals. Quite bluntly, this proposal has the potential, as we have heard from other noble Lords, to undermine the business model of those stealing phones.
The amendment would also build on important safeguards. It would require a verified notification, a mechanism for appeals or reversal in cases of error or fraud, and an obligation to notify both the National Crime Agency and local police forces, thereby strengthening intelligence. Of course we must recognise that any operational mandate of this kind must be technically feasible and proportionate—the Secretary of State must therefore set appropriate standards and timelines through regulation—but the principle behind my noble friend’s amendment is vital. If smartphones lose value as criminal commodities, the incentive to steal them will be reduced. We on these Benches give this amendment our fullest support, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Once again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling this amendment. I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this Government take mobile phone theft seriously. That is why we have measures in the Bill to take it seriously, and why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a mobile phone summit for the first time last year. That is also why we encouraged the Met to undertake its conference next week on mobile phone theft.
That is also why, in figures I can give to the noble Baroness, over the past year—the first year of this Labour Government—mobile phone thefts in London have fallen by 10,000, a reduction of 12.3% from the previous Government’s performance. It is a real and important issue. We are trying to tackle it and are improving on the performance from the time when she was Deputy Prime Minister. I just leave that with her to have a think about that, even at this late hour.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
So will the Minister accept my noble friend’s amendment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. I accept the principle of the work the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is bringing forward, but I do not accept it in the context that the noble Baroness put it: that we are doing nothing. We are doing quite a lot. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which is the important thing—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness did, actually. She said that nothing was happening under this Government. Every Member on this side of the House heard her say that.
The hour is late so I will go to the nub of the issue, which is the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Law enforcement partners—the police and the Home Office—are taking robust action to drive down instances of mobile phone theft. We have delivered the most comprehensive, intelligence-led response to mobile phone theft, and Operation Reckoning, supported by the Home Office through the Metropolitan Police Service, is tracking down criminal gangs on this issue, going to the point the noble Baroness did not mention.
I agree that we need to take action to make sure the companies that design these devices provide services, play their part and do absolutely everything they can to ensure that a stolen mobile phone is not a valuable commodity and therefore not worth stealing, which was the very point the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Law enforcement partners—all of us in the law enforcement sector—are currently working in collaboration with technology companies and partners, including phone manufacturers, to look at the technical solutions, which, I must say to the noble Baroness, is something that the previous Government did not do. The Home Office is supporting this important work, and I thank everybody involved for their constructive engagement.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, that it is our preferred approach to allow this collaborative work between mobile phone manufacturers, mobile phone operators, law enforcement partners and the Home Office to continue, so that we find a positive solution to this problem, rather than accepting the amendment before us today and mandating a specific, untested solution through legislation. It does not mean that we will not do this—we want to try to do it—but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that works, is sustainable and is in partnership with the mobile phone authorities. The approach we are taking will reduce the risk of legislation not achieving the desired output.
I want to be clear to the noble Lord that we are working on that now. If it does not work, and if we find blockages and we do not make progress, we reserve the right to look at any and all options. At the moment I cannot accept his amendment, because it would mandate us to do something, but we are already trying to work on this to make sure that what we do works. We are doing that in partnership with all those authorities. At the same time, we are doing practical stuff by tracking down people and putting more police on the beat, including the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are introducing over the next few years. We are also ensuring that we take action through the Bill on tracking mobile phones and giving police superintendents more action. That is a positive programme of action. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not withdraw it, I will ask my noble friends to vote against it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I had hoped the tone of this debate was going to be a bit more productive, collaborative and consensual. I just wish that the noble Lord would sometimes bite his lip on this. Frankly, we had a consensus, but he had to go into partisan, party-political mode, attacking the previous Conservative Government.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am a fairly gentle soul, but if the noble Baroness provokes this Government by saying that they are taking no action, then this Government will fight back and explain what action they are taking.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Let me talk in detail about something I remember.