Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This 300-page incoherent mish-mash of a Bill contains some truly odious measures, and I have time to deal with only one of them: the dangerous and unjustifiable crackdown on the freedom to protest in clauses 54 to 60. Those clauses alone are enough for me to vote against Second Reading tonight, despite the Bill containing some good measures.

This populist Government have swiftly developed a penchant for authoritarianism, born of their approach to getting the vast amount of Brexit legislation necessary through Parliament. They have got into the habit of writing framework Bills with extensive Henry VIII powers, leaving vast scope for Ministers to change primary legislation by personal fiat, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. This trend has been made worse by the necessity to legislate swiftly for public health reasons because of covid, again with no scrutiny ahead of laws being brought into force. The coronavirus crisis has led to a draconian removal of basic liberties that is necessary temporarily for health reasons, but not for a minute to be thought of as desirable. The Government now want to make this emergency way of doing things the norm, to enable police officers to have far too much power effectively to silence any protest.

We have a Government who attack judges who decide cases in ways they do not approve of; some Law Officers who will not defend the independence of the judiciary; a Government who legislate to enable themselves to break a treaty that they have only just signed; Ministers, including the Home Secretary, who break the ministerial code with impunity, while senior civil servants they disagree with are hounded out of their jobs; and a Government who now want to take the power to ban demonstrations or vigils if they are too noisy—they are literally silencing any protest they do not like.

This legislation allows for convictions for breach of conditions that the police have imposed, even where the person on trial has no knowledge of what that condition was; it increases the punishment for such a breach from 12 weeks to 51 weeks in prison. The Home Secretary seems to have hijacked what was a worthy enough sentencing Bill to insert her divisive and polarising measures on protests. The original timetable for the Bill gave the game away. It was due to be completed in time for the police and crime commissioner elections in May. This is being done to enable the Government to claim that their political opponents are not supporting the police enough—indeed, we have already heard speeches from some Government Back Benchers claiming just that.

There has been no real focus on how the law should be changed for the good of society. For example, we have just seen how much it fails to meet the needs of women, who just want to be safe. This Bill just does not tackle any of those issues. Clauses 54 to 60 are intended to destroy the fundamental rights of citizens in our democracy to protest, and just for some cheap headlines ahead of an election. The Bill is draconian and undesirable, and the Government should not get away with enacting it.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call Maria Eagle.

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

Q Thank you, Mr McCabe. People in this country have a right to peaceful protest, and it is tremendously important that it is kept. You have acknowledged that in your earlier answers, but if there is a peaceful protest or picket happening outside a business or a premises, how will you ensure that police officers on the scene know what the balance ought to be? How will you ensure that this is properly policed, so that people’s rights are not infringed?

Chief Constable Harrington: Police training already clearly plays a large part in our obligations, positive and negative, under the Human Rights Act, and we make those judgments around balance now—the protection of rights and freedoms of others, versus the rights of assembly and freedom of expression that are so important. It is a core part of our training, from senior commanders through to police constables and every rank and grade in between. We already balance those competing rights.

In terms of preparation, we engage with protest groups where we can and where they wish to engage with us. We try to understand what it is that they wish to achieve through their protest, and we then try to speak to those who would be impacted on—you used the example of people in a shop—to understand what they need. We try to strike a balance that allows both of those rights and freedoms to be carried out and realised. Sometimes there is conflict in that, because some might seek to obstruct one or the other. That is when police commanders and officers have to make those judgments, but it is always about how they balance those rights in a way that is proportionate and necessary. Of course, any restrictions that we place on those rights must always be prescribed in law, and that is what we say the provisions in the Bill allow us to do more clearly for all involved.

[Maria Eagle]

Q The Good Law Project is concerned that, in effect,

“entire classes or types of protests”

will be prohibited and that the bar for what will constitute significant disruption to the community, which is a woolly phrase—what does that consist of?—will be set at a low level, which will infringe on people’s rights to protest peacefully. What do you think about this, and what is your understanding of the definition of serious annoyance?

Chief Constable Harrington: The vast majority of protests across the country are largely unpoliced and take place without police intervention, and we use our current powers under the Public Order Act to impose restrictions relatively infrequently. Over the past year, I do not think it has been more than 20 times, although some of those have been high profile and have obviously been challenged in the courts. These are not powers that we seek to use frequently, and they are well considered. Of course, they are subject, and have been subject, to challenge in the courts, both through judicial review and subsequently when people have been prosecuted for breaching the conditions in relation to that.

On serious annoyance, we think serious disruption is a very high bar. We asked for “significant impact” on the community, to take account of where it may not be serious but is perhaps significant to a business, an individual or a school, or to the operation of someone’s life and freedoms. On serious annoyance, we need to see what Parliament’s decision on the definition of that is and to interpret that accordingly, always coming back to how we interpret the law in a way which comes back to the fundamental freedoms and those fundamental obligations on policing, which is to get the balance right between those who wish to express those rights and those who are impacted by them. We will have to see what Parliament decides and whether it is able to give us some clarity about what that means, so that we can make those judgments in an informed and lawful way.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Have any of you ever policed a protest or been involved in policing a large protest that has been peaceful, or otherwise, and that has not been noisy?

Chief Constable Harrington: I have policed many protests over 27 years in London, and headed up public order for the Metropolitan police in a previous job, so, yes. There are lots of cases—Redmond-Bate and others—that would suggest that protest is annoyance and disruptive. This is the balance. We come back to the point: where does that level of disruption become, in our view, a significant impact on a community? That is the balance of judgment that we have to make. If that stops the operation of a business—a hospital perhaps—or stops thousands or tens of thousands of people commuting to their jobs each day, our argument would be that that tends to trip the bar to say that that is not proportionate and the balance is out of kilter there.

Equally, we have to take into account that there will be some annoyance and there will be some noise, but that is the judgment call that commanders have to make, balancing those and taking the evidence or the information from those affected by it. We would very much welcome from Parliament guidance and a steer as to what that would mean and what the levels are—if you excuse the pun—because that is how we can then make sure that we balance those rights lawfully and proportionately.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Are you telling me that those protests have all been noisy or that some of them were not noisy?

Chief Constable Harrington: Some are very, very noisy, with drums, cymbals and bands, and others—certainly that I have been involved with—have been absolutely silent, because of the nature of those protests. Noise is one element which can disrupt, but so also is the presence. So there is a whole variety of different protests, but, yes, many are noisy.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Finally, if there is a small one-person picket outside a shop for a particular reason, or a very small collection of people with a legitimate reason to protest or picket at a site, can you reassure me that those protests will be allowed to go ahead?

Chief Constable Harrington: The presumption is that people have a right to assembly, and we would only impose conditions on those where we think that there is serious disruption, serious disorder or the likelihood of serious damage, or they are there to intimidate people. As the law suggests, we have always said that, in terms of serious disruption, that bar is very, very high, and we would like to see “significant impact”.

We use these powers currently very rarely. We allow and facilitate many protests, and sometimes to our criticism. Police commanders are criticised for getting the balance wrong because one or other side, or opposing views, think that it should not be allowed. I cannot say that every protest will always be allowed, but I think individual commanders will make informed, balanced judgments based on the information, always seeking to get the balance right, with a presumption that is set out in the Human Rights Act that we will facilitate a peaceful assembly, but always balancing that against the protection of rights and freedoms of others.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thank you. And finally, finally, did you ask the Government for these powers?

Chief Constable Harrington: As I said, we asked for greater consistency in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. For the Committee’s benefit, for a procession, we can impose conditions such as appear reasonable to the senior commander in the circumstances—whatever range of conditions. For an assembly, we can only specify location, duration and maximum numbers. As I said, the point is when does a march begin and an assembly stop? You will have all seen that in your own experience.

We asked for greater clarity around public nuisance and for that to become a statutory offence, rather than a common law offence. We think that gives commanders and the public greater clarity and understanding. We think that is an important power that will allow us to deal with some of the more serious disruption to communities that perhaps might be planned.

We also asked that, where we have talked to individuals and gone through breach of the conditions, whether in advance, through publication, through engagement or through the five-stage appeal before we use enforcement, and where we have done everything we possibly can, often videoing officers speaking to or giving a leaflet to someone who we say is breaching, that the presumption be shifted, as they ought to know, because we have done everything possible. We have asked for those kinds of powers, and they are reflected in the Bill.

[The Chair]

I will come to Allan Dorans in a second, but in the interest of balance we will go first to Antony Higginbotham first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

[Maria Eagle]

Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?

John Apter: These were changes that the Police Federation had not particularly called for, but what I do support, especially after listening to Chief Constable Harrington, is the view that we need to evolve the Public Order Act. Protests have evolved over the years. The way individuals react and, very often, confront police officers has dynamically changed. The vast majority of protests we do not hear about: they are unremarkable; they are peaceful. I do not think you will find many police officers, if any, who do not support the right of peaceful, lawful protest. But we have to evolve; the legislation must evolve to be dynamic, as the protesters are. Very often, we see on our television screens so-called peaceful protests, which are hijacked by those with an agenda to cause violence; we see this time and again. So while the Police Federation has not called for this particular part of the Bill, we are supportive of an evolution of the Public Order Act to make sure that it is fit for purpose but still allows lawful protest and gathering—bearing in mind the pressures on policing at the same time.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Do you have any view on the impact of the use of these powers on the important relationship between the public and the police?

Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I think the relationship between the public and the police has never been more tested than it has been in the last 18 months. Some of the work and effort that has gone into public relations at a time when we have had to police—some of the laws that have been put in place for the covid restrictions have really put a strain on the relationship, in terms of how we balance peaceful protest with trying to maintain the health regulations that are in place. The relationship that we have with the public is fundamentally important to us, and some of the polls that have come out show that there is significant trust and confidence across the public in general. We recognise there is certain strain with certain communities, but in the main we do have public support. Knowing that that relationship is so strong and knowing about the use of the Human Rights Act in everything that we do in terms of policing should provide the public with the necessary reassurance that we police in an appropriate, lawful and necessary way, and we will continue to do so.

[Maria Eagle]

Q People in this country have the right to protest peacefully. If the proposed changes are enacted, what will you be able to do to ensure that the public do not lose the right to protest peacefully—that it is not impinged upon by the changes in legislation that are proposed in the Bill?

Chief Superintendent Griffiths: One of the most important factors that has emerged over the last 18 months and that is a fundamental part of many of our police command issues—whether that is public order, investigations or firearms—is effective communication with the public, so that there is a clear understanding about what they can and cannot do, what we can and cannot do, and how that relationship evolves. We want to facilitate peaceful protest, because it is a fundamental part of our liberal democracy. That is golden to the public, and it is golden to policing as well, but how we balance the human rights of all the individuals, including the ones who are impacted by protest, is a really difficult and challenging balancing judgment that needs to be made by police commanders. From my perspective, a lot of this is about effective communication on what is lawful and what is not lawful. We need to make sure that liaison is in place where there are leaders in relation to the protest issues, so that we can plan in advance, facilitate it is as best as possible and continue as we have done in many veins, in terms of making sure to the best of our ability that people can protest and not be impacted either way.

[Maria Eagle]

Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?

John Apter: Obviously, the relationship with the public is integral to our style of policing and for the communities, and it has been tested. Paul is right to say it has been tested to the limit in some places over the past 15-plus months. The overarching issue with the Bill, and on protest, is one for the NPCC and, as Paul says, for the commanders, but when relationships break down, it is my colleagues—my members—who feel the brunt of that out on the streets. Of course, when we are policing protests or any sort of activity where there is high emotion and where there will be an element, in some cases, who will be intent on violence no matter what we do, we have to react accordingly. But communication is key, accepting that some will not want to be communicated with; they will not want to hear the message. The relationship is so important—I cannot stress that enough. I agree with Paul: despite the challenges over the last year-plus, the relationship with the vast majority of the public is still very much intact and still very positive.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Finally, you have both expressed the view that the policing of the coronavirus regulations over the last year has increased the strain that is felt between the police and the public, for understandable reasons. If they are enacted, do you think that the changes in respect of policing protest will improve that relationship or make it harder?

John Apter: I think the problem that we found with the coronavirus legislation was that it was unprecedented. I remember when the legislation was brought in—it was unbelievable. It was almost like watching a film being made. I have been a police officer for more than 28 years, and I would never have dreamt that we would be policing in the way that we were asked to police. If that is how policing felt, you can only imagine how the public felt, and we had to evolve. There were multiple changes of legislation that were not always as clear as they could be, and I understand why. I understand why the legislation had to be rushed through, but that came with problems, because my colleagues did not always know what was fully expected of them but nevertheless did their best in the most trying of circumstances. With the Bill, Parliament can inspect and go through the processes in a timely way, so I hope on behalf of my members that whatever the Bill looks like at the end of the process, it will offer clarity and guidance, and that people will completely understand what is expected of them, both within policing and for the public. I have hopes, and Parliament will do what it does on scrutiny as the Bill goes through that process.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

Mr Griffiths, is there anything you want to add?

Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I was just going to add that when some of the health regulations were introduced at pace, at speed and at scale, there were moments when there was a lack of consistency across the country, but that was gripped by the police service with the four Es approach. The reality is that applying consistency through this legislation will aid public order policing across the whole country. As we move forward and develop, in line with the legislation, we will do what we always do, which is to increase our communication, and review and adapt accordingly, to best facilitate peaceful protest.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maria Eagle]

Q Can I ask Unlock if they have anything to add?

Sam Doohan: While we talk about the further end of the criminal justice system, rather than the sentencing part of it, one thing that we see as being particularly positive about problem-solving courts is that while, yes, they are potentially more expensive up front, they have a much stronger ability to head off reoffending, which saves money further down the road in potential future court cases and prison sentences.

We see it as a false economy to say that problem-solving courts cost more in the immediate term. The Government’s White Paper, which led to this Bill, put the cost of reoffending at something like £18 billion—a huge amount of money. For relatively low-level offences that, in the grand scheme of things, are typically associated with reoffending over a more protracted period, if there is no intervention, that extra money is well worth it. We just have to invest it up front and make sure that the solutions actually work.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Would you like to see problem-solving courts rolled out without being piloted first? Why pilot them when we know what their benefits are?

Sam Doohan: Certainly, in the present climate, we would probably see a pilot as a political necessity. However, we would expect a pilot to be very positive. We see no reason why it would not be. It would be nice if we could make them happen tomorrow—have ring-fenced funding and have some long-term commitment to them—but if it takes a year or two years to prove the point and make them a permanent fixture of the justice system, that would be more positive in the long run.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thanks. I just want to ask about sentencing and the wide range of proposals in the Bill. Have you detected anything in the Bill that you think will contribute to sentence inflation and will mean that, inadvertently or otherwise, people end up with longer sentences?

Campbell Robb: The evidence from the Bill suggests that most of the approach in it will lead to longer sentences and people in prison for longer. It is also disappointing that there is nothing in the Bill that tackles the issue of the 30,000 short sentences of under six months that are given out every year, which cause significant damage to the individuals involved. We understand the desire of the Government to meet what it feels is the public’s desire to see longer tariffs for some crimes. However, we could have done so much more, particularly on short sentences, to really think through who is ending up in prison, why and for how long.

[Maria Eagle]

Q I was not really asking you to tell me whether the provisions for longer sentences will create longer sentences, but whether there is anything else in the Bill that might inadvertently end up creating sentence inflation.

Campbell Robb: I misunderstood, sorry. On treatment orders and the others types of things that we have just been talking about, if they are too harsh or too difficult to pass, or if people have been set up to fail, there is a danger within those that if they are not done properly with the individual and they do not understand the consequences of what they are doing, people could end up back in prison for failing on a relatively minor breach of a treatment order. It is hard to say there is evidence of that, but there is some concern that that might be the case. I hope that answers your question.

[Maria Eagle]

Yes, certainly.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

Thank you. That was really helpful.

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

Q I want to ask about the serious violence reduction units and what you think they will be able to do in practice and how they will interact. I do not know what experience you have in Scotland with different arrangements; there may be some. There are existing partnerships and cross-agency collaborations. Do you think that the proposed serious violence reduction units will complement or replace them? What is your experience of this kind of collaborative working and how well it can fit in within existing structures, some of which will overlap?

Will Linden: That is an important question, because they do have to fit in with existing structures. One of the successes we have had in Scotland in delivering on the strategy is because we are connected in. We are connected into policing. We are connected into the Government. We are connected into local government across the country. If you are introducing any new structures alongside that—VRUs; it does not matter what it is—how are they going to connect into local delivery and local services? More importantly, how is it going to connect into local communities?

If we are looking at strategies based on short-term turnaround—for example, we are going to provide x amount of money to provide a reduction in the next year—that is not going to work, because you are looking at how to build the building blocks, within these communities, areas and partnerships, that are going to deliver long-term, sustainable outcomes. That does not mean that the partnerships, in whatever area of the country they are, cannot get reductions just now, but what we want to do is to build upon those short-term wins in order to build long-term, sustainable reductions that are built into the system—that are not additionality.

[Maria Eagle]

Q There are supposed to be pilots of the serious violence reduction units—I think Merseyside, my area, is one of the pilot areas. Do you have any experience of those kinds of pilots in Scotland? If so, what kind of indicators would you expect the Government to be monitoring to assess whether they have been successful before rolling out further?

Will Linden: We do not have any experience in what you are looking to do down in Merseyside or any other areas, but you need to think beyond the traditional route of crime indicators because of the length of time involved.

You can look at trying to reduce the levels of crime and violence, but what we are dealing with just now is a post-pandemic situation. Over the last year, we have seen significant changes to communities’ environments, so you might actually face increasing levels of violence and there might be increasing problems over the next year or two as a result of the consequences of the last year, and post recovery. If you just tie yourselves down to simple crime figures and recorded crime figures, you could be challenged on that. What we will have to do is to look at some of the other figures around things like community wellbeing, trust in the services, trust in policing and education figures, and try to take in a broad spectrum of outcomes, particularly when we are looking at young people.

If our outcome is solely about reducing crime, that can be achieved quite simply with two things. Recorded crime can be reduced by changing the law and stopping recording it; that is easy. But if you want to reduce the harm that violence causes our communities, you have to look at all the various measurements that measure harm. Some of those are simple, like the crime surveys. Others are much more complex, in terms of mental health or wellbeing. I would look to try to include as wide a sweep as possible, to try to get an understanding of its wider impacts, not just the simple ones.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thank you. Let me welcome Iryna back. I hope she can hear us. We can now see that she is moving, so hopefully she can hear us.

Iryna, I am asking about the serious violence reduction units and how they are going to fit into other arrangements that are already there. From the perspective of the Children’s Society, do you have anything to say about how the new multi-agency collaborations are going to work alongside violence reduction units and existing structures that are supposed to promote collaboration between agencies?

Iryna Pona: First, apologies for being disconnected. There were some technical difficulties.

The violence reduction unit is obviously quite new, and they also work in very different areas. With the new duty to focus on serious violence, I think it is very important that in the way it works, it should be complementary and joined up with the work of the violence reduction unit. It is also important to understand that areas where there are violence reduction units receive additional funding to undertake violence reduction activity locally, but that is not available across the country. It is really important that the new duty is supported with appropriate resources and delivered locally.

The Children’s Services Funding Alliance, which the Children’s Society is part of, looked at the funding from 2010-11 to 2018-19 on early intervention and late intervention services. It showed that the funding for early intervention services reduced by 46% during that time, while the funding for late intervention services increased by 29%. That shows that there is not enough early intervention available. It is important that where there is activity that focuses specifically on diverting young persons from being involved in violence or violence-related activity, it comes together with funding to address the underlying causes of why young people may be in a situation where they may be exploited in a particular way or drawn into certain groups and activities.

It is really important to understand that local picture. In that respect, it is really important that violence reduction units and local safeguarding partnerships work together to understand those underlying causes and try to develop a strategy that will comprehensively address those local issues.

[The Chair]

Sorry about this noisy room, colleagues. It is an extraordinarily noisy room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thank you. You do not sound entirely convinced that it will be a great initiative, but no doubt the proof of the pudding will be in the eating when we see these things established and starting to work. Do you have any views on the changes proposed to youth rehabilitation orders?

Hazel Williamson: If we look at the proposal for an extended intensive supervision and surveillance programme, it did not have great results when it was previously piloted, and it was not piloted on a scale to allow an effective evaluation. We as YOT managers are not convinced that the extended ISS is the way to go. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that custody is the last resort for children and young people.

The other proposal in the Bill that we as an association have been discussing is around intensive fostering. Staffordshire youth offending team—my service—was part of one of the pilots. That scheme was extremely expensive and did not necessarily get the expected results for those children and young people. So while we absolutely support robust alternatives to custody, I think we need to be consulting with our youth offending teams to try to examine what we think will work with the cohort of children we are dealing with.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Finally from me, do the changes in the Bill on custody for children and options for children make enough good provision to distinguish between the needs of boys and the needs of girls in the system?

Hazel Williamson: There has always been a disparity for our girls in the system. I am concerned overall that the numbers of children going into custody will increase with some proposed mandatory sentencing, and I am concerned that it will impact in particular on our girls and our black and minority ethnic children—particularly our black and mixed heritage boys. I am also concerned that it may impact on our children who are looked after. There are some particular groups in the youth justice system who I believe will be adversely affected by some of the recommendations in the Bill.

[Sarah Champion]

Q Thank you ever so much for this, Hazel. I have been around one of these secure children’s homes—it was a mixed-sex one—and I found it absolutely terrifying. I have visited places such as Strangeways that were nowhere near as horrifying as I found the secure unit. You said that you would rather they were small and located close to the child’s home. Can you define “small”? How many children? What would be the maximum?

Hazel Williamson: I am not going to put a figure on it, but we know that we get better outcomes for children and young people who are placed in secure children’s homes that are generally run by people who are social work and social care-trained, and that provides a much more nurturing environment. It is a children’s home with security rather than a custodial environment overseen by prison rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you.

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

[Maria Eagle]

Q The Bill, if it is enacted, would increase the initial bail period to three months, with extensions to six months, nine months and then beyond nine months. Would you set out what your precise concerns about that are?

Ellie Cumbo: I should say at the outset that we support the aim of those provisions, first to give clarity, and secondly to give the police a realistic opportunity to conduct investigations in hopes of preventing such measures as we have seen in recent years: the over-reliance on release under investigation, which the Committee may be aware that the Law Society has raised significant concerns about. At the moment, the risk is that a great many people—we do not know how many, and that is part of the problem—who are suspected of a crime but have not yet been charged with one are living in limbo for truly unacceptable lengths of time, as are all other potential parties to the case, including the complainants and potential witnesses. We understand that if the police have a little bit more time in which to put somebody on bail, that might reduce the need for them to feel that release under investigation is their only option.

However, at the other end of the scale, we do not want to return to the situation prior to 2017, where suspects could be on bail for indeterminate lengths of time. That too is a situation that places an unacceptable strain not only on defendants, as they are at that point, but on the other parties to the case, including complainants —potential victims. Our preference was for a middle way, so when this was consulted on in 2017, our preference was for an initial period of two months, followed by extensions up to four and up to six. That was what we felt was the appropriate middle ground. We feel that the potential to go to nine months before a court gets anywhere near the matter is excessive, but we do support the aim. We obviously want there to be greater certainty for all concerned.

I should just say, in closing, that ultimately what we really want, which I hope we could all agree on, is fewer delays, and investigations that conclude in a timely fashion. In our view, that is better achieved by greater investment of resources in the criminal justice system, rather than by what I might call a little bit of tinkering around bail time limits.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Are there difficulties for solicitors and lawyers who seek to assist those accused who might be on bail or release under investigation for long periods? Are problems caused by the delay, in terms of getting proper access to legal advice for those people who are on bail for an extended period of time, perhaps a long time before they are charged, or due in court having been charged? We are seeing extensions in those timescales caused in part by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and in part by delays that were in the system beforehand. Does the Law Society have concerns about access to legal advice that are made worse by these delays because of long time periods on bail or release under investigation?

Ellie Cumbo: The first thing to say is that of course that uncertainty, that living in limbo that I referred to previously, affects solicitors and legal practitioners, too. Ultimately, though, I think what my members would say is that it is their entire duty to act in the interests of their client, so it is the impact on their clients that they are quick to raise with us, and the potential injustice not only for, as I say, suspects and potential defendants, but all other parties to the case.

It is probably worth also developing the issue of what this might mean for access to legal advice. The longer a case is put off, the greater the risk of disengagement by the suspect or defendant and by all others. Memories fade. Justice outcomes are potentially damaged by the time that there actually is a hearing, and that is not good for anybody.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thank you. You also raised concerns about remote hearings and clause 166. What concerns do you have about that?

Ellie Cumbo: I should say that we are in a middling position—again—on those provisions. We have not taken a stance against the provisions. Solicitors have adapted very well to remote hearings over the last year and a half, and they have been seen to have very great advantages, particularly in relation to administrative or interlocutory hearings where only the legal representatives are present. That has enhanced everyone’s convenience and the efficiency of proceedings in a very clear way, and our members are very clear about that.

However, we do have concerns about the fact that this is a very new development. It is foetal in terms of lifespan in the broader justice system. We would not be the first to raise concerns about the ability of vulnerable parties to participate in an effective way. In a survey that we recently conducted with our members, only 16% of them told us that they felt that vulnerable parties were able to participate effectively in remote hearings. We understand that the judiciary have taken notice of that. Guidance is available, in different jurisdictions, about the cases in which remote hearings are thought to be suitable. But it is still a developing agenda, and we are concerned that things should not move forward too quickly, because it is a substantive change and of course—as with so much in the criminal justice system—we know very little about the potential impact on justice outcomes and whether it is in fact in any way a risk to the right to a fair trial to conduct certain types of hearing in a remote way.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thank you. When I was the Minister for disabled people—a long time ago now—I led on recognising British Sign Language as a language. The Bill amends the 13th person rule by allowing a BSL interpreter into the jury room, with the aim of enabling deaf jurors to participate. Do you welcome that? If you do have concerns about it, what are they?

Ellie Cumbo: We certainly welcome it, yes. Many people might be surprised that it is not already the case that a British Sign Language interpreter can be present in those circumstances. Obviously, that is a reflection of the fact that the whole system takes the importance of an independent jury very seriously—it is perhaps the most important safeguard we have for the fundamental rights of those who are charged with criminal offences. That is probably why it has taken the length of time it has to get here.

Our view is that, given where the public consensus can be judged to be and the fact that BSL interpreters participate in other types of confidential proceedings, we do not think that at this point it would be sustainable not to move forward with these provisions. Obviously, we are pleased to see that the Government are taking seriously the risk that the jury might in some way be influenced unduly by the presence of a 13th person, but as long as those safeguards are in place, we are entirely supportive of those provisions.

[Sarah Champion]

Q Chair, I apologise for running late.

Ellie, I am reeling from something that our Front-Bench spokesperson said in the last session. In chapter 3, on the extraction of information from electronic devices, in clause 36(10), the Government redefine an adult away from the definition in the convention on the rights of a child, which defines a child as a human under the age of 18, to

“ ‘adult’ means a person aged 16 or over”.

Could you comment on that extraordinary change?

Ellie Cumbo: I have not had the benefit of hearing that, so I think it would be unwise and unhelpful for me to do so. Could I come back to you on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Dr Janes, you wanted to say something a moment ago and put your hand up.

Dr Janes: I would just add, on this point, that the really important aspect of sentencing is judicial discretion. That is essential if you want to really make sure we do not make women, children and disabled people—people from all sorts of backgrounds—suffer unduly. There is a real shift away from judicial discretion in this Bill.

Nina Champion: Some of the provisions will disproportionately impact women, and also black, Asian and minority ethnic women. For example, on the clause relating to assault on emergency workers, the equality impact assessment acknowledges that for that type of assault, which can often happen, for example, after a stop and search, it is more likely that women will be caught up by extending the maximum sentence in that provision. Of course, we want to protect our frontline workers, but these sentences have already been increased, even in 2018, and the deterrent effect just is not there. The proof is not there that it has any impact on protecting our frontline workers. What it does is catch more people up in the criminal justice system.

The other proposal relating to mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for issues around drug trafficking, will also capture more women and black, Asian and minority ethnic women. As Laura said, it removes judicial discretion to look at the individual circumstances of the case. We know that many women may have been coerced or exploited in drug trafficking cases. As Kate said, they are victims themselves. Introducing minimum sentences removes the opportunity for the judge to look at the individual circumstances of the case.

[Maria Eagle]

Q I want to press a little further on the impact on women in prison and on whether this Bill will help or make things more difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, many of the women who end up in prison are there on short sentences for less serious and non-violent offences, and quite often they are victims themselves. To what extent to do the sentencing provisions in the Bill recognise the difference in offending in respect of women, who are a small proportion of the overall prison population? Do you believe they have been forgotten in this policy development process?

Dr Paradine: Yes, absolutely. This is a Bill that does not recognise the nuances of individual cases, including those relating to women. We know that hard cases make bad law, and many of the provisions are an example of that. We absolutely think that the needs of women have been overlooked.

We know that sentence inflation has knock-on effects throughout the system. There are many unintended consequences to, for example, focusing on the enforcement of community orders and including more and more enforcement measures without addressing the real issue, which is about support to ensure that those who have community sentences can complete them with the support that they need. From our point of view, many of these measures are not looking at individual cases and enabling the discretion on the ground that is needed to make sure we meet each case as we find it. We know that the women’s prison population can be radically reduced, but not with some of these measures, which do not take into account the unintended consequences—particularly the impact on women who are primary carers and the best interests of their children.

Nina Champion: I just wanted to add a point about the lack of overall consultation with this Bill and these provisions. Because it was brought in as a White Paper, rather than a Green Paper, there has been no public official consultation. Groups that will be disproportionately impacted by these measures have not had the opportunity to be heard, including organisations and individuals representing those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, women, or young adults. We really need to have much greater consultation before these measures are brought in to ensure that there are not the adverse impacts that Kate was talking about.

[Maria Eagle]

Q In your experience, does it happen that women end up getting sentenced, usually for short terms of imprisonment, because they have either breached community orders or have committed repeat petty offences, such that magistrates end up feeling like there is not really any alternative to a custodial sentence? And to what extent do you believe that a broader range of more appropriate community sentences, for example, might be an answer to this situation, rather than imprisonment?

Dr Paradine: Yes, absolutely. The problem-solving courts pilot is one small green shoot of hope in this Bill, in that those sorts of measures, which will enable court and multi-agency support across the system locally to tackle the root causes of what brings people into the system, are really the answer here. We would like to see much more focus on those innovative solutions, restorative justice and out-of-court disposals, of course, which are a really untapped resource in terms of what could turn our system around.

We are concerned not only about the lack of consultation with all sorts of groups representing the interests of those affected by this system but with professionals working within it. We know that there is real progress with out-of-court disposals and the use of simple cautions, conditional cautions and all those provisions available to the police, and we think that those measures must be looked at really, really closely, to make sure that the unintended consequence is not to undermine progress that is already being made in doing exactly what you say needs to be done, which is to focus on a wide range of community solutions that enable us to tailor sentences and responses to individual cases, and actually turn these situations around rather than driving people into a system—indeed, a revolving door—that they find it difficult to escape from.

[Maria Eagle]

I think that the Howard League wanted to come in there, if I can see properly.

Dr Janes: Thank you very much; I just want to make a brief point. I completely agree with what Kate just said, but I will add to it that the Howard League is concerned about this increased use of electronic monitoring, and particularly, as was raised earlier, the lack of scrutiny of it by the courts. There is a real concern that, instead of it being an alternative to custody, it can become a gateway to custody, and a real concern that that could disproportionately affect women. I just wanted to add that.

[The Chair]

Dr Bild wants to come in on this and then Nina Champion. Dr Bild.

Dr Bild: Sometimes there is a disconnect between what Parliament does with legislation and what happens in practice. Lots of relatively innovative and problem-solving options have been available, in theory, for a number of years. You can attach treatment orders—alcohol treatment orders, mental health orders or drug orders—to community orders and suspended sentence orders, but in practice it happens very, very rarely. Only a tiny proportion of community orders and suspended sentence orders will have what might be a rehabilitative order attached to them.

Part of this is a commitment to resourcing, as well. There does not need to be huge legislative change; this stuff is already on the statute book and it is already, in theory, available to sentencers. Anecdotally, sentencers are reluctant to impose an order that they are not entirely sure is available, and the defendant will not be able to benefit, through no fault of their own.

It is not necessarily only about finding new ideas, although new ideas are very welcome; it is also about properly resourcing, and showing some commitment to, what is already on the statute book.

Nina Champion: I just wanted to add that there are a couple of missed opportunities, in terms of a presumption against short sentences—there was a real missed opportunity here to divert people from custody—and to look at adult remand as well as child remand, as adult remand disproportionately affects women.

Also, just picking up on Kate’s point about restorative justice, the White Paper made some positive noises about the benefits of restorative justice, both for victims—in terms of coping and recovery—and for reducing reoffending, particularly for violent offences. However, the Bill does nothing to ensure that there will be more access to restorative justice. For example, the national action plan for restorative justice expired in March 2018 and has not yet been renewed. Those are the sorts of measures that really will make a difference for victims and reduce reoffending.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Finally, the Government do have a policy about diverting women from prison. They have a concordat. They have policy development ongoing that seeks to do that. Do you believe that that policy intent, which has often been referred to by Ministers—there is documentation out there about it—is reflected in the Bill, and that the policy intent of trying to divert women from prison can be translated through the measures in the Bill, as well as existing provision, into concrete change that will divert women from prison?

Dr Paradine: I am sorry to say that, no, we do not think that the current Bill does that. There are all sorts of ways in which the intent to reduce the number of women in prison radically and to divert women, and others, from the system is not played out in its provisions. For all the reasons that have been covered by the various members of the panel, it does not do that. Sadly, unless the Bill’s direction of travel is redirected towards rehabilitation and communities rather than prison and creating harsher sentences, any progress that has been made will unravel really quickly. The 500 prison places will sadly be the focus, rather than our hope that we could really transform the system in the way that it affects women, families and communities, and beyond that men and young people also.

There needs to be a really strong rethink of what the Bill is trying to do, and a focus on the real problem, which is community support services and the ways that we tackle the root causes of offending. There is very little in the Bill that convinces us that that is the focus, so we need a really strong rethink to focus on communities and not on prison. We know that victims want sentences that work. They do not want to see harsh sentences that do not work. Their interest is in stopping crime and reducing reoffending. Sadly, we do not think that the Bill as it stands achieves that ultimate aim.

[Alex Cunningham]

Q I will be very brief because my colleague has also asked some questions. Jonathan, do you have concerns about clause 108 and the power to refer high-risk offenders to the Parole Board in place of automatic release?

Dr Bild: Yes I do. Of all the clauses, that is the one that I have the most concern about. I saw some of the discussion on Tuesday with Jonathan Hall, QC in relation to terrorism, but this is broader than terrorism, of course. It takes in a large number of offences that are violent, and certain sexual offences.

The problem I think it creates is twofold. First, there is an issue with the power being given to the Secretary of State. As I say, I saw the debate on Tuesday. I think it engages slightly different considerations than the changes that took place last year in relation to terrorism did. On this occasion, we are talking about the Secretary of State intervening on the sentence of an individual prisoner, which engages a slightly different debate to the Secretary of State changing the arrangements for everyone convicted of a certain offence. I would draw an analogy to the Home Secretary’s old role to set the tariff for life-sentence prisoners. That power spent about 20 years in litigation before the Home Secretary lost it. It is slightly different, but there is an analogy, I think, and I am not sure that it is an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to have.

There is also a real concern that the most dangerous people will come out with no supervision, no licence conditions and no support. In some respects, the more dangerous you are, the less you will be managed in the community. In terms of managing that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Q My phone has been pinging all day. We have an unauthorised Traveller camp just set up in the constituency of Ashfield. With that comes lots of problems. We know from experience that there will be an increase in crime locally tonight. We will see sheds getting broke into. We will see a little bit of intimidating behaviour in the local neighbourhood. Probably, pub landlords will have a tough time as well. There will be some fly-tipping. The list goes on and on. It is a big problem, not just in Ashfield, but all over the country. The Bill sort of addresses that and it is great news for my residents.

I surveyed 1,000 people in my constituency earlier this year. I will run through a couple of the questions I asked. The first question was: do you think the Travelling community respect the rights of the local community when they set up camp in your area? Only 4% said yes. I asked: do you think the Home Secretary is right when she said that we need to give our police tougher measures to stop unauthorised camps? Only 3% said no. I am not going to run through all the questions, but the last one I will give you is this: do you think crime rises in the area when an illegal camp is set up? Some 92% of my residents said yes.

The Bill is great news, because what it will do is see a decrease in crime the four or five times a year when unauthorised camps are set up in my community. I would like to ask the witnesses whether they agree with me that crime will reduce in places such as Ashfield because of the new measures in the Bill to stop unauthorised camps. It is a yes or no answer.

Professor Clark: Well, I am speaking to you as someone who has been employed as a professor and a researcher for more than 25 years.

I suppose we need to begin with querying the methodology of the survey that was just mentioned and how robust that kind of response and the data are. In terms of a yes or no answer, the answer in a sense would be this. What is in place to ensure that we address the ripple effect of the issues and consequences of the lack of provision of Traveller sites at least since the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and up to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? The concern is that if people have nowhere to go, if there are no legal sites in the area, these encampments will not go away, so unfortunately this new legislation, which I think is going to be just about as unpopular as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and we all remember how unpopular that was, will do nothing to solve this issue.

What needs to be in place is a national site strategy that to some extent addresses the wide-ranging social policy issues that arise when there are unauthorised camps, as they were referred to there; roadside sites is another way of talking about it, in terms of the terminology. The Government need to work with the organisations that represent the communities to plan an effective road map—quite literally—of UK sites and accommodation. I just do not see this legislation helping that by any means at all.

We are witnessing right now what is going on in Bristol —the really draconian eviction that is going on in Bristol. We are witnessing what has happened at the Wickham horse fair. This goes back many, many generations, and I think there has been an overreaction at the Wickham horse fair today as well. A really serious rethink is needed. I would hope that time and energy were spent addressing the shortfall issues with accommodation and the consequent social policy issues that arise, rather than trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is a minority within a minority of the population. Bear in mind that 75% to 80% of the Gypsy and Traveller population in the United Kingdom are in bricks-and-mortar housing; this is a small percentage.

I absolutely sympathise with the speaker who mentioned the issues in the local area. What needs to be done is to address that issue in a more comprehensive, national strategy. That, not criminalising populations, is the answer.

Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I agree with a lot of what Colin said. The specific issue around Traveller legislation is not something that we prioritised in great detail in our submission on the Bill, but as a representative of Amnesty International I would say that Travelling communities, not just in the UK but widely across continental Europe, are among the most discriminated against and victimised of any minority group in existence. That is even reflected in things like the Lammy report on racial discrimination in the UK. You do not address the problem by criminalising an entire way of life, which is one of the potential outcomes of the measures in the Bill, especially when you are talking about groups that already have protected characteristics under other relevant law.

I point out that the list of things that anecdotally were reported as part of the survey are already criminal acts. There are already powers in place to prevent, detect and stop those things and to prosecute the offenders. A common feature of some of the measures in the Bill, in our view, around the necessity and proportionality test, is that many of the things that are addressed are already criminal, or can be made criminal in the right circumstances. Those measures are neither necessary nor proportionate.

Gracie Bradley: I would echo a lot of what Colin and Olly said. The real issue here is the chronic national shortage of site provision. Instead of criminalisation, what we want to see is local authorities and Government working together to improve site provision.

It is really important to recognise that we are talking about one of the most marginalised communities in the UK at the moment. These measures are a disproportionate and probably unlawful interference in Gypsy, Roma and Travellers’ nomadic way of life. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights protects people’s right to private and family life and their home. The Court of Appeal has set out that this community has an enshrined freedom to move from one place to another, and the state has a positive obligation to protect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ traditional way of life. The new seizure powers in respect of vehicles in particular are very likely to mean that people end up facing homelessness.

As we have already discussed, some elements of these proposals are very subjective and invite stereotypes and profiling. The majority of police forces do not want greater powers. Research from Friends, Families and Travellers has shown that when police were consulted in 2018, 84% of the responses said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments, and 75% of responses said that their current powers were sufficient and/or proportionate. The issue is the chronic national shortage of site provision, and that should be the priority of Government and local authorities.

[Maria Eagle]

Q Thank you to our panel for turning up early. I want to give you an opportunity to tell us anything you like about your views on the powers for policing protests in the Bill. Are they necessary? What impact will their use have if the provisions are enacted?

[The Chair]

We will go in reverse order. Gracie first, then Oliver and Colin.

Gracie Bradley: Thanks. I would like to set the Bill in its wider context. What we are seeing is a shrinking space for people to speak up and hold power to account, the Human Rights Act potentially being watered down, and attacks on judicial review. Now we see this policing Bill that inevitably poses an existential threat to our right to protest. These aspects of the Bill are so significant and so serious that they cannot be mitigated by procedural amendments.

The right to protest is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and it is protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. I recognise that it is not an absolute right, but the state has a duty to protect that right and has a positive obligation to facilitate it. We must not forget that protest is an essential social good. For people who do not have access to the courts or the media and so on, it might be the only way they have to make their voices heard.

In Liberty’s view, we have not seen a compelling case in favour of expanding existing powers in respect of protests. The existing powers are already broad and difficult to challenge, and they are weighted heavily in favour of the authorities. I know that there is some analysis to suggest that the protest provisions in the Bill are a direct response to Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. I just remind the Committee that during the judicial review of the Met’s decision to ban Extinction Rebellion protests in 2019, the commissioner conceded that there were sufficient powers in the Public Order Act to deal with protests that were attempting to stretch policing to its limits. We are incredibly concerned by the existential threat to protest that the policing provisions in the Bill propose. We invite the Committee to say that they should not stand part of the Bill. I will leave it there for now because I am sure others have more to say.

Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Again, I agree wholeheartedly with what Gracie has said. Amnesty is part of a number of civil society organisations and academics who think that part 3, on protests, in its entirety should be removed from the Bill. It is neither proportionate nor necessary.

I have been working on policing issues for the best part of 25 years and I have never seen a roll-back of policing rights in all of that time. Often I think what is missing from these discussions is recognition that it is not necessarily about a lack of policing power. It is a tactical and operational decision made by commanders at the time to maintain and uphold public order, and they already have a variety of powers and laws. You have only to look at the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on public order to see the enormous list of powers police have at their disposal.

From an international perspective—you would expect me to say this as someone from an international human rights organisation—these are international legal obligations under article 21 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Interestingly, the Human Rights Committee issued a general commentary on this issue last year. It is quite normal in international legal circles for authoritative bodies to introduce guides and interpretation statements about how these things are supposed to be implemented. Importantly, the commentary on the right to peaceful protest issued by the Human Rights Committee last September said that states parties should avoid using

“overbroad restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly.”

It stated that peaceful assembly can be

“inherently or deliberately disruptive and require a significant degree of toleration.”

Lowering the thresholds and introducing vague terminology such as “noise”, “annoyance” and “unease” are the clear definition of overly broad restrictions on the right to peaceful protest. It puts the UK out of step with its international obligations.

That is also important in the foreign policy setting, because Britain—the UK—goes out of its way to say that it wants to be a champion of human rights around the world, especially on issues of civic space and freedom of assembly. It was a feature of the integrated review and it featured in the UK’s response to the G7 communiqué. It is awfully difficult for the UK to champion these issues on the world stage when domestically it is rolling them back. If any other regime in any other context were to introduce powers of the kind introduced in the UK by this Bill, the UK Government would be the first to criticise. It gives those regimes an easy excuse or get-out clause. They can point the finger and say, “Well, the UK is as guilty as all of us. The UK has no credibility to lead on these issues on the world stage.” That discussion is missing a bit from this Bill.

Professor Clark: There is little I can add to what has been said, but I will do my best.

The words that Olly quoted—“noise”, “annoyance” and “unease”—are replicated in other parts of the Bill, where there is talk of “disruption”, “damage” and “distress” of a significant nature. What strikes me is the imprecise language and terminology of the Bill, and the potential that it would introduce for discretion, the operation of prejudice and bad governance, in a sense. It leads to some fundamental questions about what kind of democracy we want to live in. Do we want to live in a democracy that protects human rights, protects peaceful assembly and guarantees both formal and substantive citizenship rights?

I am of an age where I remember being outside where you are right now back in 1993, peacefully assembling to protest the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for the same reasons that we are here today. There is a real sense of déjà vu about this in terms of the rights to protest and to peaceful assembly. Then, of course, it was raves and the succession of repetitive beats, as the Act made it known. It was a section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that effectively ripped up the obligation of the state and local authorities to provide Gypsy sites within local authority areas. There is a real sense that we have not made much progress here at all.

Again, I concur with what Gracie and Olly said. I hope this is taken on board.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling the amendment. Does she agree that one of the problems is that for too long there has been a culture in the police of making do, being tough and toughing through it? That is why it is unaddressed, and that can lead to people not raising the concerns they feel and to the absence of help that should be there.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend knows the issues intimately and has tried to address them in the past. She speaks with a great deal of experience and she is absolutely right. I was speaking to my district commander about the clause on Friday. He said, “The biggest problem we have is that the culture in the force is basically to deal with it, and we are weak if we try to raise concerns.” My response to him was that in the armed forces, particularly in the last 10 years, they have completely turned that culture around because there was the will and impetus to do that. I am incredibly impressed by the level of self-awareness, recognition and support that the armed forces have when people start to feel the impact of trauma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Exactly. My hon. Friend used the phrase, “I did not even think about it” and that is what we have to change. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to turn that around and have a culture in which, if someone sees something traumatic, it will be automatic to check in on them to see if they are okay. If they are okay, that is good, and they can move on. Our police are suffering the most extreme trauma day in, day out. They do not know it when they get up in the morning but they have no idea what they will face when they open that door. Think of the stress that puts on their bodies—stress that can be alleviated.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not enough just to ask, “How are you?” in the context of a culture that expects people to be okay, and that, consequently, the Minister can give a lead in how she implements her welcome proposal for the police covenant by emphasising that mental health is as important as physical health? Does my hon. Friend also agree that just having wellbeing in there is not quite enough to change a culture and that the expectation that support is given needs to be clear?

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend puts it far more elegantly than I could; I absolutely agree. The police covenant talks about wellbeing. We need the word “trauma” in there, because that is what we are dealing with. The Minister has the opportunity to put that in black and white and show the leadership that we need. The whole House would support her in that. I really hope that she can take that forward.

In our evidence sessions, Assistant Commissioner Hewitt said that we have an issue with

“the restricted amount of capacity. That is one of our challenges…one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 6, Q3.]

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, early intervention prevents escalation. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, spoke about dealing with trauma, saying:

“We have come an awful long way, but we have not gone far enough. One of the frustrations that my colleagues have is the inconsistency within forces…part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support. The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training”.—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]

Chief Superintendent Griffiths said:

“There has been a 36% increase in inquiries to the police charities compared with the previous year, the vast majority of which are mental health concerns.”

He added that, on trauma,

the exposure for police officers…is quite significant.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 29, Q43.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I do welcome it, but it is not just the Police Federation, NARPO or the College of Policing that are saying that; it is what I hear when I speak to serving officers. I had a long conversation with my district commander about this on Friday, and he cited case after case of officers entering a building, having a traumatic experience, and then him trying to give them support. However, what tends to happen is that the support is not in place, the waiting list is too long and they then go off on long-term sick leave. While off on long-term sick leave, the issue is compounded so it becomes even more of an issue. I paraphrase, but basically he said to me: “When we are able to offer early intervention, the officer comes back and carries on serving. When we are not, we know that they are going to be off for a very long time, if indeed they come back at all.”

I say to the Minister that this amendment is a common-sense courtesy. It is a way for the House and the Minister to make a clear commitment to recognising mental health and trauma, and showing the respect and duty that we have to our police force.

[Maria Eagle]

I want to make a short contribution based upon my experience before I came into the House, which was a shocking length of time ago. It was 24 years ago, in fact, and now I have put that on the record—oh dear.

Before that time, I was a solicitor practising in civil litigation. I frequently tried to help people who had been traumatised at work and were suing their employer, normally because they had lost their employment. Some of the people I sought to assist in that capacity were serving and former police officers, and others who had encountered traumatic situations in the workplace.

At the time, I thought of myself as a relatively sympathetic ear, and I think I was regarded as such too—Members might be startled to hear that, given the adversarial nature of proceedings in this House over the past 24 years. However, it was tremendously difficult for me to get a good statement out of the people who had been traumatised, because they had put up barriers. I would ask them, “What effect did this have on you?” and they would say, “I’m fine. I’m okay.” Often that was a few years after the incident that led them to the path out of employment, whether they had to retire or they were medically dismissed. They were clearly not okay, yet even when I, as their solicitor, was seeking to take a statement to assist them in getting some support ex post facto, and usually after they had had to leave their employment, they were still almost incapable of telling me how they really felt about what had happened and the impact it had had on them.

I know that if those people had been in a culture that said, “It’s okay to be not okay; we are going to provide you with help; you might not think you need it, but it is here in case you do, and it is perfectly fine to go along to the counsellor and break down in tears; that does not mean you are not a man”—they generally were men, but not only—then my role as a solicitor, trying to get them some compensation for their trauma over the years and their loss of employment, might have been a lot easier.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend reminds me of another constituent who is no longer a police officer, unfortunately. He went to what he was told was a domestic incident, was let in and found someone on the floor, convulsing—they had taken a large amount of cocaine when they knew he was entering the building. He tried to resuscitate the person, which led to PTSD. He left the force, but this is where the double nub that my hon. Friend spoke about relating to compensation needs to be considered. The police force did not recognise his PTSD, which was the reason he resigned from the force—he could not cope because he could not get the support from them—but the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority did not acknowledge that he was a victim of a crime because of the incident that led to the trauma, so he got no support, no compensation and no job. He actually went to a solicitor three times and challenged it. I am glad to say that he is now an incredible campaigner for police veterans with PTSD and is getting them the recognition that they deserve, but it should not have to be a fight all the time; it should be automatic.

[Maria Eagle]

I saw that kind of situation many times in my practice as a solicitor. I always felt that it would have been better to have prevented these things from happening. I believe that amendment 2, by making it clear that the covenant can and should seek to address trauma, could be the key to opening up and changing that culture, facets of which we have all, in our various ways, given examples of today.

One thing that is common to all the examples that Members have recalled from their own experience is that they involve an emergency worker—someone who is there to help and benefit society—who in the course of their employment sees the kinds of things that the rest of us in society are shielded from, thankfully, and then they are not supported to overcome that trauma. That is the common thread.

The Government should accept the amendment, because wellbeing equates to mental wellbeing. It is not just about someone making sure they are physically strong enough to be a police officer; mental support is just as important. If inserting “trauma” could be a key to unlocking that kind of support, I believe that the Government could be responsible for leading and promoting a change in culture across our emergency services.

That has already happened in the armed forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said. Much progress has been made in what was a very macho workplace, where there was an equal lack of understanding that mental ill health and trauma could lead to serious disability, a lack of operational effectiveness and a requirement to retire far earlier than society would have wished, having invested a lot of money, time and effort into training such specialists. That is also true of our emergency services on the civilian side.

This is an opportunity for the Government to lead what will be a tremendously important change in culture—a signal to those organisations that this is the way forward and this is what matters. This has been missing in our civilian forces and civilian emergency services, and it needs to be there. This could be a really important way of leading that change.

I hope that the Minister will see the importance of that and will ignore what she may have in front of her, which will be from civil servants—who are doing their job absolutely adequately and well, I have no doubt—setting out to try to resist any change to the perfect wording that they have devised. It is not always perfect; it can sometimes be improved. I am not criticising the civil servants—I spent nine years as a Minister, so I know how hard they work—but sometimes a Minister can apply her own common sense to what is in front of her. She is there to do just that. She is there to say to her officials, “That’s all very interesting, but I am applying my political common sense and we are going to accept it.”

If the Minister does that—I hope she will—it could be the beginning of a real change in culture that in future will impact on the nameless people who otherwise might have fallen into the kinds of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham so eloquently set out. All of us who have spoken in this short debate have some experience of coming across aspects of this issue. In the future there might be unnamed people whose health benefits and who do not lose their employment and livelihoods because the Minister was brave enough to lead the change by accepting the amendments. I hope she will think very seriously about doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right in how he describes what the covenant should be about and how it should work.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by including a broad spread of representative organisations at all levels of the police, whether trade unions or staff associations, and at all levels, from the most junior officer to more senior officers, it is much more likely that the kinds of events that lead to the outcomes that we were discussing earlier in the debate will be identified and can be tackled via the covenant, if those things are talked about across the whole range of organisations before fixing the report? Is that not the point of the amendment?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right, and all the police organisations have been really clear that this is how we get the best outcome from the covenant, and that this is how we can best define it. I mentioned the death of George Floyd, and all the major police organisations have been working together on black lives matter issues—for example, by looking at issues around discrimination across the police force. I have had many conversations with Martin Hewitt, John Apter, police supers and others in which they talk about how absolutely fascinating it has been to talk to police officers lower down in the force, understand what is holding them back and what changes need to be made, and drive that change forward. By bringing in all these organisations, we can deliver better policy.

John Apter, in an evidence session last week, said that

“in order to make the covenant meaningful for our members, retired colleagues and volunteers, I think that level of independence on the oversight programme, the oversight board and the delivery board, which would then lead in to the Government, is really important…It is not just the federation calling for this; collectively, we all believe very strongly in it.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 30, Q44.]

That is a powerful case, which I am sure the Minister understands. I hope that she will support our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. She is right: in the course of proceedings on that Bill, we examined the impact that domestic abuse has on members of the wider policing family. She is absolutely right, and I will come on to that point about the trauma, if I may. I do very much acknowledge it.

I will just explain the thinking behind the clause as currently drafted. The covenant takes the form of a declaration and is not set out in the Bill. In particular, the report must address the health and wellbeing of members and former members of the police workforce in England and Wales, their physical protections and support for their families. Over time, the report may deal with other matters addressed under the banner of the police covenant.

The clause is in the Bill because our police put themselves at risk on a daily basis, dealing with some of the most challenging, toughest and most heartbreaking situations—hon. Members have given examples of that during this debate. I will explain how the covenant came into being. We set out a frontline review, inviting police officers, staff and community support officers to share ideas, in order to change and improve policing. The results of that review identified the fact that more must be done to support the wellbeing of those across the policing community. We have therefore announced plans to establish a police covenant, to recognise the bravery, sacrifices and commitment of those who work, or who have worked, in policing. No member of the police workforce should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their role in policing, and the covenant will support that aim.

The examples that hon. Members have provided show, first, the challenges, difficulties and—actually—terror that officers must face on occasion. However, I also hope—I am grasping for silver linings—that some of the stories show the improvements in our collective understanding of the impact of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder on mental health.

The example that the hon. Member for Rotherham gave of the officer who—I think she said that they were not even asked if they were okay, which, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood quite rightly said, should be only the beginning of the conversation; of course, much more must flow from that first question. However, the officer to whom the hon. Member for Rotherham referred had to leave the force in 1999. I hope that we all, as a society, have gained a better understanding of the impacts of trauma and so on on mental health since then.

[Maria Eagle]

Because the Minister has just said that trauma is now recognised, will she go the whole hog and include the word in her wonderful clause 1?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am developing my argument, if I may. The reason I referred to that particular officer, although other examples were given, is that under the covenant, as it is drafted, that officer—as a former member of the police force—is covered by the covenant, and we very much want it to support not just serving members but those who have served and have since retired, or had to leave.

We now come to the nub of the issue—the inclusion of words in the legal framework, as set out in the Bill. We believe very strongly that the consideration of the impact of working with traumatised survivors on the morale and wellbeing of members and former members of the police force is already within scope of the clause, as currently drafted. It falls within the broad categories of health and wellbeing, as set out in clause 1.

Again, just to give the Committee some comfort and, indeed, I hope confidence in what we intend to do, our initial priorities for year one, which will be overseen and monitored by the police covenant oversight board and the police covenant delivery group, will include working towards ensuring that occupational health standards, including for mental health, are embedded in all forces; holding chiefs to account for providing the right quality and investment in their workforce; further consideration of a new chief medical officer for policing in England and Wales; working on a review to establish what is a good support model for families, drawing on established good practice and research from other sectors and international partners; and once that is agreed forces will be required to implement locally bespoke schemes in their local infrastructure. It will include development training for GPs around the role of the police, similar to the military veterans’ GP training, and development of pre-deployment mental health support provided to the police workforce, particularly in the light of the pandemic and the effect that it will have had on the police workforce.

Rather like the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, whereby in the definition we set out the very broad legal framework, and there were many examples of domestic abuse behaviour in those categories, which were then put into the statutory guidance. The wording, “health and wellbeing”, provides the legal framework. Within that, it is for the board, the delivery group and, ultimately, the Secretary of State, to include those matters in the report.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am sure that I will give further clarification in due course if it is needed, but I draw comfort from the fact that the wording I have here is the development of “pre-deployment” mental health support. If that requires further explanation, I am sure that I will provide that explanation in due course.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I would just like to give comfort on this point. We also plan that the board should have its inaugural meeting to set its priorities during scrutiny of the Bill. Parliament will be able to assess the priorities that flow from that meeting within the scrutiny of the Bill. The approach in the clause is very much of openness and transparency. We want the concerns that have been quite properly put forward to be addressed within the legal framework as set out in clause 1, and the practical workings to have meaningful effect for officers, former officers and members of staff on the ground.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister has been very generous in giving way. It sounds as if she is moving towards the suggestion that she might not accept the amendment. Although in broad terms, the word “trauma” can be encompassed in the widest possible definition of health and wellbeing, one of the difficulties faced thus far is that the culture has been that health is about physical health, and wellbeing is just about not being off work. Consequently, were she to accept the change in wording, it would give a very strong steer that Government see the importance of cultural change being at the heart of the issue.

[Victoria Atkins]

I would go further, because I would not want the Committee to understand that the covenant is the only work being done on mental health and understanding trauma and wellbeing. There is already work going on with some of the people who have been mentioned in the debate to improve local understanding of the impact. Chief constables are very alive to that.

The point of the covenant is to set the framework for recognition in relation to both mental and physical wellbeing, and to set up the structure so that the Secretary of State is accountable through the report to Parliament for those matters. It is drafted as it is because we do not want to fall into the beguiling trap where, in a year or three years’ time perhaps, people look at a list of conditions in a piece of legislation, and take that as exhaustive. We want professional curiosity and intelligence to be used in these matters. Our concern is that differentiating physical and mental health could have unintended consequences years down the line for how the terms of the covenant are deployed at local level.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Clause 2 increases the maximum penalty for common assault or battery against an emergency worker from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment, thereby delivering our manifesto commitment. Our emergency services place themselves in harm’s way to protect us, and it is therefore right that we treat with particular seriousness any assault committed against an emergency worker, which is why we seek to legislate to increase the maximum sentence for assault against them from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our emergency services for the work they do on our behalf and on behalf of all our constituents, keeping us safe, looking after us and protecting us. I am sure the whole Committee will be united in expressing that sentiment.

We consulted last year on extending the maximum penalty from one year to two years and found overwhelming support for the move. In evidence last week, we heard representatives of policing and emergency services expressing strong support for the move as well. It will give courts the ability to pass higher sentences, reflecting the seriousness and severity of these offences. The clause does not change the definition of emergency workers. That is set out in section 3(1) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and covers police constables; National Crime Agency officers; prison and custody officers; fire, rescue and search personnel; and those people providing NHS services. The clause simply amends the maximum sentence that appears in that Act from 12 months to two years.

It is worth saying that, where more serious assaults occur against emergency workers, such as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or grievous bodily harm with intent, those offences will be charged as those more serious matters, which of course have higher sentences. Actual bodily harm has a maximum sentence of five years; GBH, under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, also has a five-year maximum; and GBH with intent has a maximum sentence of life. We of course expect more serious assaults on our emergency workers to be prosecuted and sentenced accordingly.

It is worth noting that the proportion of defendants in assault cases against emergency workers receiving immediate custody went up last year compared with the year before, from 17% to 25%, and about 10,000 cases were successfully prosecuted and sentenced. This legislation is being used on a fairly wide basis.

No amendments have been tabled to the clause. I believe it commands widespread support across the House and among the public. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than necessary. I think I have covered the key elements of the proposals, and spoken about the importance of the work of our emergency services and the tribute that we pay to them. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Maria Eagle]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for long; I have just a couple of points. The Minister set out that the consultation has gone on. It was obviously a manifesto commitment of his party, and I generally approve of manifesto commitments being implemented. Even if I might not agree with all the ones that were in his manifesto, I can see the point, but am I not right that the original intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act, was to have a two-year maximum, but it was reduced during the passage of the legislation to one year as a consequence of the Government of the day wanting it to be one year?

I understand that there have been consultations and a manifesto commitment since, but from where does this Damascene conversion come? It seems to me that the Government originally said, “We’ll support the legislation if the maximum is one year,” and within months of it being implemented they were saying, “It’s got to be two years,” which was what my hon. Friend actually wanted. He cut it in order to get Government support. I am interested to find out where that conversion came from. Was there some sudden bit of evidence that convinced the Government that my hon. Friend was correct, in which case I congratulate the Government on being willing to change their mind. I would be interested to hear from the Minister where that change of heart came from.

Secondly, I notice that the British Association of Social Workers and the Social Workers Union have submitted a petition to the Government, which I understand has quite a few thousand signatures, asking them to amend the legislation to include social workers in the definition of emergency workers. No doubt there are arguments for and against that, but I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say about whether the Government have any intention of doing that.

[Sarah Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

We will therefore establish a new Home Office homicide oversight board to oversee the introduction of the offensive weapons homicide reviews, to monitor and implement any of the findings, and to support dissemination, both locally and nationally. More information on this board will be provided in due course.

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

Given that the Minister is determined to learn the lessons of these reviews and given the importance of properly funding local agencies to carry out any such improvements, can she confirm today that additional resource will go along with this additional focus from the Home Office on implementation?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am very pleased to confirm that the Home Office will provide funding for the relevant review partners to cover the costs of the reviews during the pilot stage, and will meet the cost of the Home Office homicide oversight board. If the policy is rolled out nationally, funding arrangements will be confirmed after the pilot, but in that initial period that is certainly the approach.

I am trying to see whether I have further details about the pilots that I can assist the Committee with. Clause 33 requires that a pilot of the reviews takes place for one or more purpose, or in at least one area. We intend to pilot reviews in at least three areas and are currently in discussions to enable that to happen. We will announce the pilot areas in due course. We want to pilot the reviews in areas that have high levels of homicide and in areas that have low levels, and that represent regions in both England and Wales.

We will also specify in regulations the length of time that the pilot will last. We currently intend to run the pilot for 18 months to ensure that the review process can be tested properly in each of the pilot areas, but clause 23 allows us to extend the length of the pilot for a further period, which may be useful if further test cases are needed. Our approach is to ensure that the pilot provides us with the greatest insight and information as to how the reviews would work if we roll them out across the whole of England and Wales. In the interests of transparency, clause 33 also requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the pilot before the reviews can come fully into force across England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Extraction of information from electronic devices: investigations of crime etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about that power imbalance. I have not been in that situation myself, but I can only imagine the bravery that it would take for someone just to take those first steps into a police station and recount what has happened to them, given how awful that would make them feel, let alone potentially handing over everything on their phones.

We were all watching Dominic Cummings yesterday—well, some of us were. [Interruption.] Whatever we think of him, right or wrong, he commented, “Well, I would not just hand my phone over so you could look, just to fish to see if there was anything on it that you thought might be relevant.” It is the same situation here. If people have past sexual history, which most people have, the idea that that would be used against someone in that vulnerable position—

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend referred to a fishing expedition. Generally speaking in the criminal law, fishing expeditions are not encouraged, and court rules generally seek to discourage them and to prevent information gathered in that way from being used at trial. Is this any different?

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

Well, I have reached the end of my remarks—

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

I have been listening carefully to the Minister’s response. Will he undertake to get back to Opposition Members and indeed the whole Committee before Report?

[Chris Philp]

I almost said that without being prompted, but, since I have now been prompted, yes, I will.

I hope that the commentary I have given on the operation of the clause addresses the many points quite rightly and properly raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham and the shadow Minister. I have undertaken further to investigate two points, and I hope that on that basis the Committee is content to see the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I remember going on the “grants not loans” demonstrations in the late ’80s. He clearly had incredible persuasion in the demonstration he went on, resulting in the desired outcome, and I congratulate him on bringing about that change.

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

I am pleased to hear that one of us at least had an extremely effective demonstration technique. I can recall many people on our side of the debate going on demonstrations and chanting, “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Out, out, out!” for years, and she did not move.

[Bambos Charalambous]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am listening to this exchange with some care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the context of all of this is that there is a fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in this country, which is protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights? It is only lawful to interfere with that where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. And it is within that context, of our having those rights as citizens, that any measures proposed in the Bill should be judged.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These are human rights that have been fundamentally fought for and won. We need to do everything we can to secure them, and they should not be watered down as easily as is being proposed in the Bill.

These powers would also amend the offence of failing to comply with a condition imposed by the police on a protest. It would remove the legal test that requires protesters knowingly to breach a condition to commit an offence. People would commit the amended offence if they disobeyed a condition that they ought to have known was in force. Finally, these powers would allow the police to issue conditions on one-person protests. Currently, protests must involve at least two people in order to engage police powers.

The question we raised about how to ensure that protests are peaceful and how to balance the rights of others to go about their daily business is an important one as the covid crisis eases. We know that the emergency legislation introduced by this place shifted the balance of power away from citizens and towards the state. Organisations such as Liberty, Members across the House, lawyers and others have been concerned throughout that those powers are too great. We gladly handed over those powers, which was the right thing to do, but it is crucial, as we move out of the covid crisis, that we restore those rights with equal enthusiasm.

We need to remember that covid and public health formed the context within which many of the arguments over protests during the past year have occurred. Things have not been as they normally are. Decisions about allowing protests have had an extra layer of complexity, because of the need to protect public health. Decisions have been hampered by the inevitable problems of interpreting exactly what new laws mean, or should mean, in terms of protest. The fact that covid laws did not ban protests has meant that each decision has in part been subjective, putting the police in the firing line for every decision made.

I have heard many times from the police over the past year that they have struggled to be the ones interpreting the law, without the leadership from Government that they needed. The lack of the promised direction from the Home Secretary over the weekend of the Sarah Everard vigil is a stark case in point. The police were seen to be the ones making the political decisions because there was too much ambiguity in the law. That must be a firm lesson for us going forward. It is our job to define the law in a clear way, so that the police are not the ones getting the blame for our law making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the police already have significant powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions and to prohibit protests, that they have broad discretion as to how those powers are applied and that that can enable individual officers in charge of these matters to use their judgment? Is it not the case that this Bill is seeking to plug gaps that do not appear to exist?

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Good policing is done with discretion. What the Bill tries to do is to look at different ways of making the police do certain things that they may not want to do. I think that discretion is a great tool that the police have at their disposal, and they use it very well in what are often very difficult situations.

The Peelian principles are also:

“To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”

Every word of the Peelian principles holds true today.

It is our belief that the powers in this Bill threaten the fundamental balance between the police and the people. The most draconian clauses are not actually what the police asked for. We believe that these new broad and vague powers will impede the ability of the police rather than helping them to do their job, that these clauses put way too much power into the hands of the Home Secretary and that the powers threaten our fundamental right to peaceful protest. We know that hundreds of thousands of people are very concerned that their democratic right to protest is threatened by these new provisions on public order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lowering of the bar will mean that innocent people will be caught up in something when they have gone to protest about a perfectly valid issue that they are concerned about. They may get caught up in this unwittingly and could end up being criminalised as a result .

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. Does he agree that this unnecessary criminalisation of dissent, which would happen if the Bill were enacted, goes against the very best traditions of our history and democracy? We have always prided ourselves on enabling people to dissent and on allowing people to express their views in the public space about current laws and things they wish to change. If these provisions were enacted, it would go completely against that tradition.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Many of the rights we have today are hard won and came about through protest. If it were not for those protests, we would not be here today—certainly, there would not be any female MPs if those rights had not been won.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

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

[Maria Eagle]

I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. That is a concern, of course. Does my hon. Friend agree that there have been many protests outside here? I have been a Member 24 years and have seen a lot of protests outside Parliament. The vast majority did not in any way at all threaten my ability to get here to vote in Divisions. The issue is proportionality.

Is it right to ban protests because there may have been an occasion when hon. Members were prevented from being able to drive to their place of work because of the way a protest in Parliament Square had been policed? That is an important point. It is about proportionality. We do not ban everything to prevent one instance of an undoubtedly undesirable effect at the far end of the spectrum. Is that not correct?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. It is a question of proportionality, and we need to make sure that we are allowed to get here as parliamentarians, but also that protesters are allowed to air their views. It is about striking that balance. The legislation goes too far the other way, and does not strike such a balance. It is too much against the right to protest.

The reports by the inspectorate ask for modest changes, but the Government decided to go much further. The Bill targets protesters causing “serious unease”, those being too noisy and those causing serious annoyance. Clause 54 amends section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 so that police officers can issue conditions on protest marches that generate noise, but may have significant relevant impact on persons “in the vicinity” or that may result in “serious disruption” to the activities of an organisation in the vicinity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this will be very subjective. I used to play rugby, and this is what we would have called a hospital pass. It is going to put the police in an impossible situation, and they will have to make judgments about what constitutes “significant”, “relevant” and “impact.”

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to putting the police in an invidious position, the measure will promote different interpretations across different forces, and possibly within the same force? The officer on duty who has the obligation to make the call may well have a different view from another officer, on another day. What we are promoting here is confusion rather than clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

Does the Minister agree with the integrated review that we must make sure that we maintain an open society?

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not think that the provisions were covered by the European convention on human rights. We have a proud history of demonstrations being effective in this country. May I refer my hon. Friend to the Tolpuddle martyrs? In the 1830s, seven men were arrested for secretly signing up to a trade union, and were eventually transported to Australia. Thousands of people took to the streets across the country, and marched through London demanding that that unlawful conviction be overturned. The seven men who were transported to Australia were eventually pardoned and brought home. Demonstrations bring about change, and we must not interfere with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I agree. I do not accept that we must not interfere at all, but we must interfere in a proportionate and necessary manner. There is always a balance: freedom of expression is not absolute; freedom to protest is not absolute. There is always a grey area. I am trying to be helpful and not just condemn what the Government are seeking to do out of hand, although I disagree fundamentally with the provisions, which go too far.

Clause 54 amends the Public Order Act 1986 to allow the police to impose conditions if they have a reasonable belief that the

“noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may”—

not “will”—

“result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity”

or

“may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity”.

The clause confers a power on the Home Secretary to make regulations. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing in Committee about the meaning of

“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity”.

We all have views—and there are different views—about what “a relevant impact” is, and what “serious disruption” amounts to.

We may have a subjectively different understanding of what noise is. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham revealed that she has tinnitus, and noise for her is different from noise for me. That is almost certainly the case for all of us, so inherently noise is a subjective issue, which makes it difficult for those charged with these decisions to make them in a coherent, objective—they cannot be objective if they are subjective—and sensible way that means that these laws will not fall immediately into disrepute for being contrary and different when interpreted by different people in different places. Having utterly subjective interpretations that can lead to something as serious as the banning of a demonstration or an arrest or conviction for an offence, when all that the person was seeking to do was protest, which is a democratic right in a fundamentally democratic society, can cause all kinds of difficulties.

That is why I am concerned about some of the provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has made the point that the provisions tend to lower the threshold at which some kind of action is likely to be taken by the officer in charge of policing the demonstration. That can drag into criminality what was merely righteous anger or proper dissent in a democracy. That is dangerous too.

The power to regulate protests simply because they generate noise presents an existential threat to the right to protest. When it applies even to a single-person protest, it appears to be an attempt to snuff out protest or to enable the police to have the powers to snuff out a protest, even if it is protest by only one person. The police already have powers to impose conditions on protests and to divert, stop or ban protests. I am not arguing that that is wrong. Over time, it has proven to work quite well. We can all come up with instances where the police went too far or did not go far enough and things went wrong, but that is the messy business of living in a democracy, the advantages of which much outweigh the disadvantages. In that sense, I do not mind the grey area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a responsibility on all of us in the language we use. I know that in the heat of debate and the joy of advocacy, one can sometimes get a little bit carried away. But I am really keen that in this Committee we understand that the Bill is not about banning peaceful protest, particularly because of the unrest that we have seen in some parts of the country, which I will come on to in a moment.

Another perhaps colourful piece of advocacy that seems to have crept into the debate this morning is that the Bill is somehow about imprisoning more people. That is simply not correct. Indeed, anyone making such allegations should be mindful of the fact that, of course, as with any other criminal offence, the standard and burden of proof remains the same: namely, that it is for the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Those fundamentals of our criminal justice system remain throughout this process.

[Maria Eagle]

I am not saying that clause 56 will send more people to prison, but the Minister will accept that it increases the maximum penalties.

[Victoria Atkins]

It does. I will come to that, if I may, but there is a difference between increasing the maximum and doing this, as some have claimed—I accept that it is in the heat of debate—in order to put more people in prison. That is not the intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

They would. The hon. Lady may remember that I questioned Mr Wagner about his interpretation of the Public Order Act. We acknowledge, and I think the police have said, how dynamic a public protest can be; it changes very quickly and they have to make decisions very quickly, on the ground. I asked Mr Wagner, because I was slightly concerned about some of the evidence he had given earlier:

“Do you accept that the Public Order Act 1986 is a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time and should remain in law?”

He said:

“I think I would be neutral on that. It is a very wide piece of legislation. Every time I read it, I am pretty surprised at how wide it is already. What I am pretty clear about is that section 12 does not need to be widened.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 76, Q109.]

Then I asked whether that meant the Public Order Act went too far for his liking. He replied:

“Well, potentially. The proof is often in the pudding. It depends on how the police use it and whether they are using it effectively.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 76, Q110.]

I agree wholeheartedly with his summation that it is about how the police employ the powers, but we need to just have in mind the range of views that have been expressed by witnesses giving evidence to the Bill Committee, whether in writing or orally. It would appear that there are some for whom the current legislation goes too far, yet we hear of instances such as the “Kill the Bill” protests where very significant harm has been done to police officers. Hon. Members will be able to draw on their own memories of other protests that have resulted in police officers being very badly injured and hurt by the protests of a minority. It shows, again, the need for a balance.

[Maria Eagle]

Is what the Minister says not an argument for banning all protest? It is not at all clear, at the beginning of a protest, which protests are going to go wrong in that way. She said herself that things can change very quickly. It cannot be predicted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

That is one of the things addressed by the Bill’s clauses. If I may, I will go methodically through the examination of the clauses.

There is a reason why we are trying to draw consistency between processions and assemblies. In 1986, the distinction between the two might have been very clear, but we heard evidence from the police that nowadays a protest can become an assembly and an assembly can become a protest. They change, so we are trying to bring consistency between the two forms of gathering, irrespective of the mobility of the participants, so that we have clarity of law as to what applies to participants when they gather together.

At this stage in my submission, I am going to introduce some context. Again, the misunderstanding might have arisen that the measures will apply to every single protest that ever takes place, which is not the case. In his oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 28 April this year, Chief Constable Harrington said that between 21 January and 21 April this year, more than 2,500 protests were reported to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and of those 2,500 protests, conditions were imposed on 12.

As I develop my argument and talk about these powers being used very carefully by the police, and about the checks and balances within the legislation, I point to how rarely the conditions are imposed in the range of protests that go ahead. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby might have wished that conditions were imposed in other protests, but we foresee the legislation being deployed rarely and very carefully.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the Minister believe that, were the provision to be enacted and the thresholds reduced, as some of us have argued, more protests would have conditions imposed? Does she have a view on how many more or fewer protests would have conditions imposed?

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, this comes to the checks and balances in the clauses that I will go through in detail. It will be for the officer to make decisions, either on the ground or ahead of the procession, but there have been instances where the police do not have the confidence under the current legislation to impose conditions in relation to noise specifically. When one hears about the problems that residents and others in the vicinity of the noise experience, one can see why they would wish that conditions were imposed. As I say, I will go into more detail in a moment.

To set the context, the recent report on the policing of protests, produced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, found that the balance between protesters’ rights and the rights of local residents and businesses, and those who hold opposing views, leans in favour of the protesters and that a modest reset of the scales is needed. Again, this is the messy, grey area that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood referred to. As with all existing public order legislation, we are making use of the new powers. The police will continue to be required to demonstrate that their use is necessary and proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

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

The Government’s own equalities impact assessment goes on:

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

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

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

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that being against this kind of disparity is all well and good, but the only way one can reduce it, which I believe is the Government’s policy, is to be very careful—moving policy initiative by policy initiative, and change in the law by change in the law —that new measures take into account the impact of such changes on that disparity?

[Alex Cunningham]

I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we posed the question: why has there not been a full impact assessment of the impact of these measures on the BAME community? I would go so far as to challenge the Minister and his Government not just to outline the measures they will take to end these disparities but to set themselves some targets to end this injustice once and for all.

The final point I will touch on is how the Government came to a decision on which of the four offences they have included under the scope of clause 100. I remind the Committee that they are trafficking of class A drugs, domestic burglary, possession of a knife or offensive weapon, and threatening a person with a blade or offensive weapon in public. Although those are undoubtedly serious crimes, we have some concerns that focusing on such a small cohort of crimes risks missing the larger criminal forces that are at work in our country.

Take possession of a knife or offensive weapon, for example. All too often when we think of knife crime, the focus of our thoughts is on young men—often young BAME men from a disadvantaged background—carrying knives as part of a gang. Yet this image is deeply simplistic and misses the greater criminal forces at play. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham pointed out, most of the time knife crime is not being driven by youths but by a sophisticated network of veteran organised criminals. As he wrote in The Guardian so eloquently:

“Young people falling into the wrong crowd in Tottenham, Salford or Croydon know nothing about the trafficking of tonnes of cocaine across our borders every single year. They know nothing of the shipment routes from Central and South America that have made London a cocaine capital of Europe. They know nothing of the lorries, container vessels, luxury yachts and private jets that supply our nation’s £11bn-a-year drug market….This isn’t about kids in tracksuits carrying knives, it’s about men in suits carrying briefcases. It is serious criminal networks that are exploiting our young people, arming them to the teeth and sending them out to fight turf wars.”

--- Later in debate ---

But there clearly are issues that the Government want to address. This is a broader topic, and I do not want to dwell on it, because it is probably out of scope. There are obviously wider issues of racial disparity in the criminal justice system, which the shadow Minister referred to. A very good and comprehensive statement was made on this topic by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), a few months ago. I strongly commend his statement, because he went through the recommendations resulting from the Lammy review—I am probably allowed to say that, given that it is the name of the report, and I am not referring to a colleague by their name—demonstrating in each of the various cases what concrete action was being taken to address the concerns that the review uncovered. As the shadow Minister said, the Government do want to take action to make sure the justice system is always fair and is seen to be fair.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the Minister accept that despite the Government’s intentions, good as they may be, to reduce disparity, the reality is that it is not reducing and has not reduced since the report was published? Does he therefore accept that the Government need to do more?

[Chris Philp]

I have not seen the up-to-date data for the past year, but I accept that we need to pay continuous attention to these issues. We need to make sure that the justice system always behaves in a fair and even-handed manner. Clearly, we accept that we need to be eternally vigilant on that front.

To return to the topic of this clause, it is simply about making sure that the decisions taken by previous Parliaments are reflected in the way in which judges take their decisions. We also need to ensure that departing from what Parliament has specified happens only in exceptional cases. Believing as I do in parliamentary sovereignty, that seems reasonable to me.

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

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

Under ECHR and common-law provisions, we cannot extend a sentence beyond what was handed down by the court. Of course, that was the big problem with the old IPP sentences, where people could stay in prison forever; indeed, there are still people in prison under IPP sentences.

We have to work within the envelope—within the maximum sentence handed down by the court originally for the offence originally committed. The judgment is essentially to be exercised by the Parole Board on how best to protect the public, by striking a balance. Do we leave people in prison for the whole time or do we release them a bit early with a period on licence? That is a judgment that the Parole Board has to make to best protect the public. In some cases, if it thinks that the risk is very high, it may consider that the whole term in prison is the best way.

Take the example of the six years. The Parole Board may say, “Well, six years in prison is better than five years in prison followed by one year on licence”. It is a judgment that the Parole Board must make. We cannot reasonably go beyond that six years, because that would be potentially unjust: we would be punishing someone and imposing a sentence that was longer than that originally handed down by the court for the offence of which they were convicted. That would be contrary to natural justice, common law and ECHR provisions.

That is why the measure is designed as it is, and I hope that makes sense.

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

The old IPP sentences had their problems; they were much too widely used and were not originally intended to be that widely used. There was an issue about them, certainly. However, would not that kind of sentence—one that was indeterminate but able to be cut short when the individual concerned could demonstrate that they were no longer dangerous—be the answer in some of the kinds of tangents that the Minister is talking about?

The Minister seems to be tying himself in knots, to say, “Well, it’s going to be either three years or six years, but we all know that the person is coming out at the end”. Originally, IPP sentences were legislated for to deal with this very issue, but of course they ended up being too widely used. Is there not a better way of reintroducing some kind of IPP sentences that would enable greater safety but be much more narrowly used?

[Chris Philp]

Can I clarify whether the hon. Member is talking about potentially indeterminate sentences?

[Maria Eagle]

Yes.

[Chris Philp]

She is. Okay.

We debated this issue internally, when we were designing the clause. Clearly, one of the options considered was reintroducing some form of IPP sentence, which is, as the hon. Lady said, indeterminate, meaning that it could go on forever. That was not done because there is potentially an inherent injustice. We have been using the example of kidnap, so let us keep using it. If someone commits that offence and the judge decides that six years is the right sentence, to then say that that person, having been given a fixed sentence, could spend the rest of their life in prison because of a risk that they might offend later—they had not committed a more serious offence; it is just that they might—struck us as being inherently unjust.

Do hon. Members remember the film “Minority Report”, where people were incarcerated because it was judged that they might commit an offence in the future? If we get into the territory of imposing a penalty, which could be imprisonment forever, because someone might commit an offence rather than because they actually have committed an offence, we are straying into potentially slightly dangerous territory.

[Maria Eagle]

I was not suggesting that; I was not suggesting that people who have been given determinate sentences should then arbitrarily suddenly find themselves with an indeterminate sentence. What I was suggesting was that perhaps there are a small number of cases for which it would be appropriate to reintroduce the possibility for judges to give indeterminate sentences again. The problem with the IPP was that it was much too widely used; I think the wording was too broad and it was much too widely used by sentencers. But the purpose of it was to deal with just these cases that the Minister is talking about.

I am not suggesting that somebody who has been given a determinate sentence should then arbitrarily be given an indeterminate sentence. However, if an indeterminate sentence for public protection was available in very narrow circumstances to judges, would that not fill this gap in a more coherent way than the way in which the Minister is trying to do it?

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, if the original offence for which the offender is sentenced is one of the more serious ones that we have been talking about—for example, even offences that we consider to be moderately serious, such as committing grievous bodily harm with intent, have life sentences—the judge can, if he or she chooses, impose a life sentence and set a tariff for consideration for release, so there is flexibility. We are talking about cases where the original offence is not one of those very serious ones that has a life sentence, but one that has a fixed determinate sentence. I think the hon. Member is asking if we can give the judge the power to say that, even though the original offence has a fixed maximum sentence of, for example, only five years, they will override that and say, “Actually, for some reason that is not to do with the original offence, but is just to do with some other assessment of public risk, I will give you an indeterminate sentence.” I think that is the question.

[Maria Eagle]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Philp]

No, it is not.

[Maria Eagle]

Not quite. I was suggesting that perhaps the Minister should legislate for indeterminate sentences in particular circumstances and give the judge that discretion, but in a much narrower band of offences than those that ended up getting indeterminate sentences in the past. Indeterminate sentences have all been abolished now—they cannot be used. If I might say so, it seems that the Minister is trying to deal with the very issue that they were introduced to deal with in a very convoluted manner.

[Chris Philp]

No, we are trying to do deal with the issue of prisoners who become dangerous, or who clearly pose a danger to the public, while they are in prison, but without doing what IPPs did. IPPs were abolished for a reason in 2012: people who committed a particular offence with a fixed sentence of, say, five years could end up in prison forever. As I have said, for more serious offenders the judge has the option of a life sentence, but we do not think it is right that someone could commit an offence with a fixed sentence, such as five years, and end up in prison for life, not for an offence they have committed, but for one that they might commit in the future.

This is the best way of balancing that public protection consideration against natural justice—that the punishment should fit the crime—and avoid a “Minority report”-type situation where someone is incarcerated for a crime that they may commit in the future, but have not yet committed. This strikes the right balance. We stay within the envelope of the sentence handed down by the judge. The judge has the option in serious cases to hand down a life sentence already, but we have just changed the release provisions.

We have debated the clause relatively extensively, Sir Charles. It strikes the right balance between natural justice and protecting the public. On that basis, I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Yet for Labour, the concept of problem-solving courts is of course anything but new. The first substance abuse courts were launched in Wakefield and Pontefract in 1998. In 2005, seven pilot specialist domestic violence courts were launched, which was swiftly expanded to 23 sites the following year; and in 2009 the first two mental health problem-solving courts were launched. Each of these achievements was made possible under a Labour Government, so for the Opposition, problem-solving courts are not a new endeavour at all. The White Paper states that the three areas of focus for the pilot of problem-solving courts will be substance misuse—as with those established in Wakefield and Pontefract—female offenders, and perpetrators of domestic abuse.

[Maria Eagle]

Of course, there was also the North Liverpool community justice centre, which I think the Minister may have referred to, which extended the problem-solving court technique to all kinds of offences, not only specifically drug or alcohol offences, domestic violence or mental health issues, and it was very successful.

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed, that was the case. We have so much to learn from the best practice around the country, but also from what happened before this Government varied those types of courts when they came to power in 2010.

In total, the Government have committed to piloting five problem-solving courts, targeted at repeat offenders who would otherwise have been sent to custody. The Bill builds on those proposals by laying the legislative framework for the pilots to take place—specifically, clause 128 introduces schedule 13, which will give problem-solving courts the power to periodically review community and suspended sentence orders, and to commit an offender to custody for a breach. The pilot of problem-solving courts is welcome.

The evidence is clear that problem-solving courts have proven hugely effective—for example, in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system among marginal communities. As the Government’s own response to the Lammy review set out:

“Trusted figures in the CJS were described as those who had taken the time to get to know an individual, their background and specific needs and vulnerabilities.”

Moreover, if rolled out nationally, the pilot of problem-solving courts would also play an important role in reducing the huge burden on our courts system, while ensuring short custodial sentences are used only if completely necessary.

Although the Opposition support the powers in clause 128, we have some concerns, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded to them this afternoon—sorry, this morning. It is still morning!

First, as Women in Prison points out in its helpful briefing:

“In order to be considered for a problem-solving court approach, a person must first enter an admission of guilt for the alleged offence.”

The briefing goes on to note that the review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) found:

“Black, Asian and minority ethnic people are more likely to plead not guilty to alleged offences. We know that experience of racism and lack of trust in the criminal justice system prevents people from feeling that they will be treated fairly if they plead guilty.”

I know that we have already raised this issue in debate, but therein lies a difficulty that the Government will have to contend with as they pursue their pilot of problem-solving courts. As the Prison Reform Trust explains, while, on one hand, problem-solving courts have been useful at restoring confidence in the criminal justice system for those in marginalised communities, for them to be wholly successful,

“pilots must work with people who enter not guilty pleas, and on added measures that are likely to increase confidence in the process.”

I know the Minister said that the Government would do what they could to overcome that problem, but what that is, or could be, is still far from clear. Can he be more specific by explaining what steps the Government are taking on the issue of not guilty pleas and to avoid exacerbating the disproportionality that already exists for black, Asian and minority ethnic people in the criminal justice system?

Secondly, if problem-solving courts have already shown themselves to be effective in providing rehabilitative alternatives to custody, why have the Government chosen to pursue such a limited pilot rather than a larger national roll-out? Thirdly, what will the Government do to resource properly the probation and other services that work with offenders who are dealt with through problem-solving courts? The Minister knows, as I do, that resources are thin. If they are not there, the system will fail. Finally, will he report back to Parliament on the success rate of the pilots, and if so, what would the Government look for before they could commit to a national roll-out?

I will be very brief on clause 129. While clause 128 and schedule 13 provide the legislative foundation for the pilot of problem-solving courts, clause 129 and schedule 14 would enable the courts involved in the pilot to impose drug-testing requirements as part of a community sentence or a suspended sentence order. As the House briefing sets out, a court would be able to impose drug-testing requirements only where the two following conditions are met: substance misuse has contributed to the offence to which the relevant order related, or is likely to contribute towards further offending behaviour; and the Secretary of State has notified the court that arrangements to implement drug-testing requirements are available in the offender’s local area. Taken hand in hand with clause 128, the Opposition are happy to support clause 129.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Minister for his speech. Interestingly, it pulled in two different directions. On the one hand, he quoted the Bar Council’s concerns about whether the jury principle might be undermined, but then he moved a series of amendments that would considerably increase the scope of the clause. Those two points clearly pull in opposite directions, perhaps suggesting that the clause as drafted is about in the right place.

As the shadow Minister eloquently laid out, once again, clause 164 permits a stranger—a so-called 13th member—to enter the jury room where that person is a British sign language interpreter, to assist a deaf juror in participating in the proceedings. Both sides of the House have agreed that that is a good idea. The shadow Minister read out a quote from the Bar Council that raised some concerns about the sanctity of the jury room being infringed. That is of course an important principle in law. I sat as a juror at Croydon Crown court during the summer recess a couple of years ago, so I know that that is something that the system protects fiercely, and rightly so.

I assure the shadow Minister and the Bar Council that several safeguards are in place to ensure the BSL interpreter cannot unduly influence proceedings. They have to sign an agreement that includes confidentiality and other provisions, and undertake not to engage in any behaviour that might be of concern. They swear an oath to the same effect, and breaking it would be a criminal offence. Only BSL interpreters on the proper register can be used, so someone cannot be picked off the street and wander in; it has to be somebody who is on the approved register to start with.

The shadow Minister asked about the possibility of error. I believe that the intention is to have two BSL interpreters present just in case one makes a mistake or loses attention for a moment, so there is a safeguard there. Of course, if any member of the jury witnesses behaviour that concerns them, it is always open to them to report the matter to the trial judge. I hope that the safeguards that I have just outlined address the points that the shadow Minister and the Bar Council raised.

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

If jurors break their oaths and say things outside or reveal things that they should not, there can be contempt proceedings and punishments. Will the same punishments apply to the interpreters? The Minister has set out a number of contractual arrangements, which are all well and good, but will the same obligations lie upon the interpreters as lie upon jurors?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I believe—in fact, I know, because it is written down in front of me; that is not quite the same thing, but let us assume it is for these purposes—that the provisions create a new offence where a BSL interpreter intentionally interferes in or influences the deliberations of the jury in the proceedings before a court. Yes, there are now criminal provisions being introduced by the clause.

I understand the spirit in which amendments 147 to 161were moved by the shadow Minister, and he mentioned that the hon. Member for Nottingham South assisted in their development. I understand that widening the type of people who might be able to assist could help a wider range of jurors, but there are some concerns about going too far, too quickly.

As the shadow Minister pointed out, this is a significant step. It is a significant departure from centuries of established practice. Allowing a 13th person into the jury room has never been done before. There is a feeling among the stakeholders we consulted—the judiciary, the Bar and so on—that we should take this one step at a time. Let us start with British sign language interpreters and see how that goes. If it is made to work successfully, as we hope it will be, we can look in due course at widening the range of people who might be accommodated.

There are also, I should add, potential capacity constraints. For example, I am told that there are 150 registered BSL interpreters, but only 32 speech-to-text reporters, so one might have issues with the number of available people. This is an important step. Let us take this one step first and then review it on an ongoing basis to see whether we need to go further.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope the Committee will understand that it is taking us time to work through the 180,000 responses that we received—an extraordinary number for any Government survey. We have a team of officials who are working through each and every response, and we have taken each and every response very seriously. It is taking a bit of time. Once that exercise, the results of the survey, has been fully understood—fully collated and absorbed—from that, the strategy will be shaped. Later this year, we hope to be able to publish.

The strategy will deal not just with the sorts of topics that have been discussed in the course of the Committee, along with many other forms of crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls, including, for example, female genital mutilation, so-called honour-based abuse and such like. We want this to be an ambitious strategy that meets the demands of the 2020s, including the emergence of online crimes. We know from our discussions of this Bill and the scrutiny of what became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that perpetrators of crime can find ample opportunity online to continue their abuse. We are being mindful of all those aspects when drawing up the strategy.

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

The Minister is indicating a willingness to look carefully at this. Does she expect the strategy to which she is referring to end up creating new legislation? Does she expect new legislation to come out of it?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Lady is asking a question I cannot properly answer at this stage. She will know from her previous experience that drafting strategies of such depth and breadth requires cross-Government work. I am not at a stage at the moment of being able to comment directly on that. Our wider work, such as commissioning the Law Commission to look at the use of the internet and image-based abuse, which I suspect we will be talking about later this morning, and the online safety Bill, is all part of ensuring that there is lots of work across Government knitting together to provide a safer environment for women and girls, both on and offline.

We are aware that the issue is not just about the public knowing and understanding what the law is, but helping the police in knowing how to respond. I am pleased that the College of Policing has agreed to develop advice for forces in England and Wales to assist them in using existing offences in the most effective way. The Crown Prosecution Service, similarly, will revise its legal guidance on public order offences to include additional material on public sexual harassment.

Hon. Members across the Committee will agree that legislation alone cannot be expected to tackle sexual harassment. We are clear that we need to continue to drive a cultural change in attitudes and help boys and girls grow up to understand what a healthy relationship looks like and what sort of behaviour is healthy, respectful and civil in public places, and we must ensure that the sorts of episodes that girls in particular referenced in the Everyone’s Invited work are no longer experienced. I acknowledge and appreciate the debate that the amendments have induced and understand what hon. Members are seeking to achieve through the new clauses. However, I hope that, given our assurance that the Government continue to explore the issues, the hon. Member for Stockton North will feel able not to press the new clause today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

“Rare” is a relative concept. Would the Minister like to tell us how many people were remanded in this way during, say, the last year for which he has figures?

[Chris Philp]

I am afraid that I do not have that precise figure to hand: I was relaying reports I have received from people who are active in this area. I can certainly see if that figure exists, and if it does, I would obviously be happy to share it.

The intent behind this amendment is clearly to ensure that prison is used only when strictly necessary. Of course, when somebody has a mental health crisis, for example, prison is not ultimately the best place for them to be, but there may be limited circumstances in which it is necessary to use remand for someone’s own protection—as a last resort, as I say. There is a risk that if we abolish this power without being absolutely clear what the alternatives are, vulnerable people could be left exposed. The Government agree with the sentiment behind this amendment, but we want to be certain that there will be no unintended consequences and no gaps created as a result.

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, the provision of alternative accommodation in those circumstances is the most desirable outcome. We need to think carefully and make sure we have covered the full range of circumstances that may arise. That is why the Government have committed to a review of this issue. We have already written to the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system to set out our plan for this, so that is in the public domain. I know the Howard League for Penal Reform has been campaigning in this area and it will be consulted as part of that review.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I welcome the fact that he is going to conduct a review. In doing that, could he see whether any research already exists or do some research on what the outcomes are for the small number of people who are remanded in this way? I can certainly see circumstances in which they might end up in a worse state than they would have done had they not been remanded in such a way. That is important if the Minister is considering whether to get rid of these provisions.

[Chris Philp]

Yes, that is exactly the type of question the review should consider, along with the counterfactual question of what would happen if this measure is not used. Both alternatives need to be considered to reach an informed decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Having spoken to new clause 4, let me turn now to new clause 20. As the hon. Lady says, it moves the discretion away from a judge and makes it the witness’s choice whether the section 28 recording is conducted. We want to encourage as many eligible people as possible to make use of the special measures that are available, and we have taken a number of steps to ensure that objective. For example, the revised victims code, which came into force just a few weeks ago, on 1 April, focuses on victims’ rights and sets out the level of service that victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. The code also enshrines victims’ rights to have their needs assessed by the police or a witness care unit in order to determine whether they are eligible to give evidence using special measures and would benefit from doing so, to help relieve some of the stress involved in giving evidence. We want to ensure that every single eligible witness is identified, and that the matter is actively considered.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the Minister accept that many of these offences leave the victims feeling powerless? Powerlessness, and having things done to them, is part of the horror that arises from such offences. To give victims agency—to allow them to decide for themselves in those proceedings what would work for them—would be a powerful fillip to their psychological wellbeing, so that the court system is not then doing to them, after they have had the perpetrator doing things to them, and all the while they are feeling powerless. The Minister could do a lot of good by accepting the provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

That is exactly the kind of question the taskforce will be considering. Under the 1968 Act, theft is a triable either-way offence, which means it can be tried in the Crown court or the magistrates court. One matter the taskforce might consider is where the more serious of those offences are prosecuted. The option of the CPS seeking to have more of the cases tried in the Crown rather than the magistrates court could be explored, and that is a topic the taskforce most certainly may consider.

It is also worth mentioning that, in addition to the work of the taskforce and the existing powers relating to a maximum sentence of seven years, there is a lot more the Government are doing. For example, in the area of animal welfare, we are introducing legislation to recognise animals as sentient beings and putting animal welfare at the heart of Government policy decision making. We have also supported calls for increasing the penalty for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which received Royal Assent in April.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister is making an interesting point about classifying animals in law as sentient, which is overdue. Does he foresee such a change leading to changes in this legislation? Theft of a sentient being appears to be a somewhat different offence from theft of what is currently seen as an object with monetary value.

[Chris Philp]

On monetary or emotional value, the Sentencing Council guidelines recognise emotional value and non-monetary worth. The hon. Lady asks about the interaction between the 2021 Act and sentience, on which we are looking to legislate. That is the kind of topic that the taskforce will have in mind. It is an interesting point, and I will ensure that it features in the taskforce’s deliberations.

Given the work that the taskforce is doing across a far wider area than the criminal offence, and given that the criminal offence already has a maximum of seven years and that emotional value is recognised, I feel that the taskforce is doing the necessary work to step up action in this area. We recognise that there is a problem. More needs to be done, and the taskforce is doing it.

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

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I rise to speak to new clauses 45, 46 and 62. New clause 45 would introduce a new penalty for assaults on retail workers, with a 12-month maximum. This issue has been debated in the House on many occasions, and the Minister was in Westminster Hall talking about it only a couple of weeks ago, so we know that there is cross-party support for these measures. New clause 45 replicates the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 in introducing a new penalty for a range of behaviours against retail workers and includes provision for an aggravation when this occurs during the enforcement of statutory age restriction. It is a comprehensive new clause that defines this behaviour, retail worker, work and premises. New clause 62 would introduce a specific new offence with a specified penalty for assaults committed as a direct result of workers enforcing statutory age restrictions.

I thank the Co-operative party, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores, Tesco and others for their brilliant campaigning, in many cases over a number of years, to achieve greater protection for shop workers. They have been a huge help with this Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who has campaigned tirelessly for greater protections for retail workers since he was elected, most recently through his Assaults on Retail Workers (Offences) Bill. On behalf of the Opposition, I also thank our shop workers, who have made such an extraordinary contribution throughout this pandemic.

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

Has my hon. Friend heard, as I have in my constituency, that assaults and threats towards shop workers have actually worsened during the pandemic? They were at quite a bad level before, but things are worse as a consequence of the pandemic. Perhaps more thought therefore needs to be given by this House to this kind of provision.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will shortly cite figures that bear out the suggestion that assaults have increased during this period. We saw a raft of assaults during periods in which provision of certain foods was scarce, and when people objected to being asked to wear masks. During covid, we have all come to recognise the importance of shop workers in a way that we perhaps did not previously, although we should have done.

As I have said previously in Committee, Labour welcomes the new clauses that will increase the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. However, the Government’s decision not to include additional protections for shop workers represents a failure to listen to voices from the frontline and to recognise the exponential rise in abuse of retail staff over recent years. Retail workers kept our country fed, clothed and kept us going. However, many faced unacceptable attacks while working to keep us safe, from being spat at or punched to verbal abuse and intimidation. Such attacks should be met with swift and meaningful punishment, and yet the Government have decided not to introduce additional protections at this point. We ask them to think again.

In 2020, we saw a spike in abuse, threats and violence against retail workers. The BRC annual retail crime survey, which was released at the end of May, showed that violence and abuse against shop workers continued to grow to 455 incidents every day, representing a 7% increase on the previous year. ACS’s 2021 crime report shows that greater action is needed to tackle violence against shop workers. An estimated 40,000 violent incidents took place in the convenience sector over the past year, with approximately 19% resulting in injury.

--- Later in debate ---

There are similar offences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which might merit similar reform—a similar increase in sentence. We do not want to overlook that. I am not announcing Government policy, but articulating a consideration.

[Maria Eagle]

You are only the Minister.

[Chris Philp]

I am not Lord Chancellor, though.

We might separate the “cause” part from the “allow” part because “cause” and “allow” are somewhat different.

[Maria Eagle]

If we separated “cause” and “allow”, would we not be in the same position of not being able to prove which of the parents did the deed?

[Chris Philp]

The “allow” part could conceivably apply to both where there are two parents. It can probably be established that they must have been aware of the abuse because they must have noticed the kind of abuse we are talking about, but it cannot necessarily be proved that they did it or even that they caused it. Currently, it is “cause or allow” in the same offence, with the same maximum penalty. One could make a case that the “cause” bit is more serious than the “allow” bit, so they might have different maximum sentences. I have a commitment from the Lord Chancellor that I can relay to the Committee.

[Maria Eagle]

I am going to be pedantic now, but if the offences are separated yet the cause cannot be proved, the charge will have to be on the “allow” bit, which is the lower level of offence.

[Chris Philp]

Yes. We could have different maximum penalties for each of those, and even the lower one could be higher than the current penalty, so we could still make progress from where we are today.

I have a commitment from the Lord Chancellor that he will look at this in broadly the way that I described, also looking at the 1933 Act.