Peter Dowd
MP for Bootle · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. There are 4,154 people still on the road who have 12-plus points on their licence but who are not disqualified, on the grounds that it would cause disproportionate suffering to a third party. But what about the disproportionate suffering to families? Does my hon.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for setting out in a clear and unambiguous fashion the nature and content of the Bill’s 104 clauses and three schedules. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be equally clear when he winds up.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a history of toll roads in this country; many of them have been on Merseyside, including the two tunnels under the Mersey and the two bridges across the Mersey. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with legislation that will allow the Office of Rail and Road to be the independent regulator?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot quite see what the Conservatives find wrong with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who is no longer in her place, referred to a ferry crossing. There has been a ferry across the River Mersey since 1150—a long time. King Stephen was the monarch at the time; the period was called the anarchy.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that when and if schemes are developed—whatever the nature of the scheme, be it toll or otherwise—the agencies that have a part to play in them will act with integrity, honesty and passion. If they do not, hon. Members across the House will ensure that they do.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) referred to Winston Churchill. I often like to refer to Shakespeare, because I think that goes a little above that. Shakespeare said: “no legacy is so rich as honesty.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate from the Opposition is dishonest?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
3,092 lines on record for Peter Dowd, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 6 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“T7. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that he would explore selling off the Government’s remaining stake in NatWest this year. As it stands, does he anticipate that this will result in a better or worse return for taxpayers, compared with the previous sales?”
House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All those scenarios describe circumstances in which people can be convicted of serious crimes, despite making no significant contribution to that crime, so it is not correct to claim that “significant contribution” is already implied by law—it is not.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She described the following generic examples, all of which are based on real cases: a boy, cycling to and from an incident, who has no contact with the victim; a driver who drops friends off to collect drugs, and a fight happens outside the car; a passenger in a taxi, where others get out of the taxi and go to an area where a stabbing occurs, but that passenger has no contact with the victim; schoolchildren who gather for a fight and one of them dies, but they are all prosecuted even when they have had no contact with the victim and have no weapon, putting them all in risk of being convicted, without separating those who contribute and those who do not contribute; autistic children who find it difficult to assess what others will do; children exploited to sell drugs who get caught up in the actions of others; a woman whose violent boyfriend gets angry with some people and runs after them around a corner—she follows a short while later and pulls another person’s hair when she thinks he is being attacked; and a woman looking for her shoes during violent disorder.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my view, it would be hard to object to the new clause on the grounds of unintended consequences as to do so would be an acknowledgement of the belief that some people deserve to be found guilty of offences—sometimes very serious offences, such as murder—despite making no significant contribution to the commission of those offences. As such, Ministers may claim that the amendment is unnecessary on the grounds that our current laws—whether “aid” or “abet” in statute or “assist” or “encourage” in common law—already imply a significant contribution or that the current flexibility of the law is part of its strength, as it means that it is for the jury to weigh up and decide on the facts of a particular case. That is not the case according to Dr Felicity Gerry KC, who was lead counsel in the Jogee case.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, that would not prevent the use of alternative charges in cases involving multiple accused persons, nor would it prevent the prosecution of multiple persons for a crime in which they all made a significant contribution. It would not help anyone who is already convicted under this doctrine—I referred to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield—but it would be an important step in preventing the unfair and unjust use of joint enterprise laws against innocent people in the future. I understand that there may be some objections; as far as I am aware, the Government have not made any formal response to the proposed change but have let it be known that they are potentially resistant to the idea. I hope that the Minister's response to the Committee will clarify any of those objections.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would simply add weight to the words of the 1861 Act, inserting: “by making a significant contribution to its commission” and thereby enshrining in statute a common-sense safeguard against inappropriate or over-zealous prosecutions. That is an important principle in a fair and effective justice system. By clarifying that someone must make a “significant contribution” to an offence in order to be criminally liable, the new clause seeks to restore Parliament’s original meaning and to correct a second wrong turn by the court with respect to joint enterprise. That would help to ensure that persons who make no significant contribution to a crime are never again convicted of being complicit in that crime.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That flexibility gives rise to uncertainties and injustice. For example, joint enterprise laws are being used to convict young people who are seen fighting, but not with the victim; young people who are not present at the scene; women who have no control over their boyfriends’ conduct; and young people who listen to certain kinds of music, where trials focus on character and culture rather than on contribution to a crime. In the recent case of Fiaz, the Court of Appeal suggested that a jury need not be specifically directed by the judge to consider the legal significance of a defendant’s contribution towards an offence. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case, so it falls to Parliament to enact safer legal frameworks. What would the new clause do?”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was, as the BBC said, a moment of “genuine legal history”. Research by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies identifies that the judgment has had little to no effect from joint enterprise changes, charges or convictions, and the Court of Appeal has decided that prisoners whose juries had only been directed to consider foresight, rather than intention, should not have a retrial. The situation is gravely unjust for many prisoners, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) tried to address it in his Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill. It is a myth that the Supreme Court fixed joint enterprise in 2016. It left under-addressed what constitutes “assist” or “encourage”. There is currently no threshold or test for whether someone made a significant contribution to a crime to be convicted of it.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Recent Crown Prosecution Service data, recorded and released as a result of legal action by Liberty and the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association, suggest that black people are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws, yet no assessment of the reasons for this shocking statistic—and it is shocking—has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service, or, as I understand it, by the Government. In 2016, the Supreme Court, in the case of R v. Jogee, said that the law on joint enterprise had taken a “wrong turn” for more than 30 years. It restored the proper law of intentions so that those who intended to commit or assist a crime, rather than those who only might have foreseen it, could be properly convicted.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Through common law, developed by the Court, “aid” or “abet” has now shifted to “assist” or “encourage” for establishing secondary liability. In many situations, this test is entirely reasonable. Most people would agree that an armed robber at a bank heist gone wrong, for example, can be deemed as culpable as their partner who actually shot a person, because they make a significant contribution to the crime by carrying or supplying a gun and threatening the cashier, for example. The problem, according to many legal experts, is that joint enterprise laws are sometimes used in a much wider way, often to convict people who have made no significant contribution to the crime at all. Campaigners have long warned that these laws can be used as a racist dragnet to maximise convictions.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. New clause 16 mirrors the Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) in attempting to amend the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. It clarifies that a person must make a significant contribution to a crime to be guilty of it. The private Member’s Bill, which has cross-party support, will have a Second Reading debate on Friday 2 February. The 1861 Act states that those “who aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of ”— an offence— “…shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.” However, the doctrine of secondary liability or joint enterprise, as it is more commonly known, is still older.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, will the Minister agree that it is not in the public interest to prosecute those who have not made a significant contribution to a crime?”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is one of the many such examples provided by Dr Gerry, who, as I said, was the lead counsel in the landmark Jogee case. Is the Minister be willing to meet Dr Gerry and other experts in this field who can explain why this change of law is so badly needed? Can the Minister explain why the Crown Prosecution Service’s own database suggests that black people, as I indicated earlier, are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws? What assessment have the Government made of the reasons behind that remarkable statistic? It is shocking. Is it not obvious why campaigners say that joint enterprise is too often used as a racist dragnet?”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend gets right to the nub of this matter, and she is absolutely right. I agree with her point. Dr Gerry points out that the case of Fiaz, in which she was lead counsel, highlights the need for legal clarity. Judges are currently required to direct juries to consider the significance of a defendant’s contribution to an offence, and that is leading to numerous miscarriages of justice. Only Parliament can fix that. I have a number of questions for the Minister. If the new clause is unnecessary, as may be claimed, can the Minister explain why when schoolchildren spontaneously gather for a fight and one of them unfortunately dies, they are sometimes all prosecuted even when they have had no contact with the victim and no weapon?”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(c) In any other case— (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both; (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.’”— (Peter Dowd.) This new clause would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision to create more serious penalties for failing to stop after collisions which result in death or serious injury. Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New Clause 17 Offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision “In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable— (a) If a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a fatal injury— (i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. (b) If a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a serious non-fatal injury— (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both; (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The whole point of British justice is that when issues are raised and potential injustice arises, we think it through and work it out, instead of just closing the door. The danger in this situation is that the Government are closing the door and effectively saying that the Jogee case is the final say on this matter. I do not think it is. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who has done sterling work, will be addressing the issue in the debate on Friday 2 February. On that basis, I will withdraw the new clause, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to what I have said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not want to go into the detail of these cases; I am just trying to make the point that the Jogee case went so far, but it still did not deal with the question of proportionality. One defence solicitor said: “They don’t need to prove that you did anything. If you’re part of a gang, it doesn’t matter, because the actus reus”— that is, being there— “and the mens rea”, the state of mind, “is being in the gang”. That could be applied in so many different cases. It could apply in boardrooms, and right across the piece: “You were there. You are guilty.” That is almost what it is saying, and that is what lawyers and Dr Gerry are trying to get the Government to consider. Let us have the debate and have the discussion with the experts.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I take the Minister’s points in good faith. Nothing that I say today—nothing whatever—condones any attempted criminality, but the question of proportionality, which we have discussed several times, is key. The Minister gave the example of a young man breaking into a care home, who was able to prove that he assisted the person. In that case, he was having to prove that he was not guilty. A fundamental element of British law is that someone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round. I see the perplexed look on the Minister’s face, but the young man in that case had to prove that he was not guilty. This was not about the prosecution proving that he was guilty.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members have had so much to take in already—we have heard that today—that I do not think that adding to that with more tragic narratives would be appropriate, but I will challenge them in a different way. For the purposes of the debate, I will set aside the emotional effect on the victim’s family, knowing that their daughter, son, brother, sister, mother, father or other relative has been left on the road or the side of the road to die by a fleeing driver because the driver decided not to stop, or, having stopped, got back into the car and drove off.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not all of those are related to serious injury or fatality, which this clause deals with, but many families are left bereft and victims are left to carry on with their lives while perhaps very physically or neurologically damaged, not to mention the ongoing psychological impact of not knowing who was responsible and of not being able to settle. Let us say that families approached us in our constituency surgery having found out that some of the drivers involved in collisions had fled the scene—in other words, they had hit and run—and had avoided potentially more serious consequences as a result. What would we say to our constituents? In preparing this speech, I pondered whether to give case examples of lives destroyed and families left shattered. I decided not to.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In a year, 1,766 people killed were killed—1,711 in Britain and 55 in Northern Ireland—and 28,941 seriously injured: 28,031 in Britain and 910 in Northern Ireland. Road deaths have increased by 10% since 2021 and are close to pre-pandemic levels. Serious injuries are up 8% since 2021. I stand to be corrected, but on average, if I have my figures right, 85 people are killed or seriously injured every year in each of our constituencies. That is seven every month. The lives of our constituents are lost or irreparably damaged or changed. Meanwhile, many drivers simply leave the scene of the collision—as many as 17,000, according to figures from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not servile to the wording of the new clauses; there can be variations on a theme. I recognise the legislative pressures on the Government and the workloads within Departments, but sometimes there are issues that have to be faced up to. In my view, this is one of them. Let me set the context for these proposals. Every 16 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on a road in the United Kingdom. That is quite a stark figure, as I am sure hon. Members will agree; it is an official figure based on the average over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. To put it into an annual context, it means that 31,000 men, women and children were killed or seriously injured in collisions, out of a total of about 135,000 casualties right across the piece, including very minor collisions.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also thank Cycling UK, particularly Roger Geffen; Amy Aeron-Thomas at Action Vision Zero, who has worked on the issue; and a number of other organisations that have campaigned for many years. However, everything I say today is my responsibility and not that of others. Why have these measures not been put on the statute book before? Promises to review the law have been made in the past and, to be fair, have been partly fulfilled, but there remains a great deal to do. It has been 10 years since the Government said that they would undertake a full review and consultation on traffic offences. Regrettably, as we discuss these issues, no full review has taken place. It seems to me that there is an irrefutable case for introducing these amendments, or a variation of them, on potential penalties.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clauses 17 and 18 relate to the offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision. My new clause 17 is clear and unambiguous. As Members will see from the explanatory statement, it would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision and would create a more serious penalty for failing to stop after a collision that results in the death or serious injury of the person hit by the vehicle. I emphasise the element that refers to victims of serious injury or death. I put on the record the support provided to me by RoadPeace, particularly by Lucy Harrison. I want to mention Pauline Fielding, who died last year; her son was killed in an accident several decades ago, and she was a sterling advocate and campaigner on the issue in the north-west. I put on record my thanks for the work that Pauline did.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Cuckooing is where the home of a vulnerable person is taken over by a criminal in order to use it to deal, store or take drugs, facilitate sex work, as a place for them to live, or to financially abuse the occupier. Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) For the purposes of this section— (a) ‘building’ includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and (b) a building is ‘residential’ if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live. (3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”— (Alex Cunningham.) This new clause would make cuckooing an offence.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New Clause 19 Use of another person’s dwelling place for criminal purposes: cuckooing “(1) A person ‘P’ commits an offence if— (a) P makes regular use of or takes up residence in a residential building lawfully occupied by another person ‘R’, (b) P uses the residential building as a base for criminal activities including but not limited to— (i) dealing, storing or taking unlawfully held controlled drugs, (ii) facilitating sex work, (iii) taking up residence without a lawful agreement with R in circumstances where R is under duress or otherwise being coerced or controlled, or (iv) financially abusing R.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I acknowledge and accept that this is not a transport Committee, but my proposals are within the scope of the Bill, so the Government have the power to pursue them if they wish. I ask the Ministers to take them away and think about them. I will be in touch with the Department for Transport, although, as I mentioned earlier, Departments are often packed out with work. None the less, this issue is of such import—it impacts on the lives of our constituents day in, day out—and we and the Government must consider it very carefully as early as practically possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear what the Minister says, and I will withdraw the motion. It was a probing amendment in an attempt to give consideration to this issue, which affects so many people—our constituents—day in, day out; I gave the figures. As I said, I recuse myself from giving examples, because they are dreadfully distressing for people and I do not want to distress Members any more than I need to. I recused myself from giving examples, of which there are so many, but I hope the Minister hears the spirit of what I tried to say. It is not about people wanting vengeance; it is about getting an element of justice. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to these matters, because at some point they will come back.”
House of Commons30 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that the Minister has tabled new clause 45 and that the Opposition no doubt will agree to it, I will not press my new clause 15. I thank the Minister for her efforts and I thank everyone who has been involved in this important work.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members for Chelmsford and for Witham (Priti Patel), who have been involved too. I will not press my own new clause 15, given that it would, in effect, introduce what the Government have now introduced. I give further thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South. Spiking is an evil crime. As things stand, it is shockingly widespread in this country. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people commissioned for The Independent found that 11% of female respondents and 6% of male respondents said that they had been spiked. The problem has only been growing. Freedom of information requests submitted by Channel 4 recently revealed that the number of drug spiking incidents reported to the police has increased fivefold in the past few years.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Getting to this point has been the result of determined action by Members across the House, and I am glad to have played a very small part in achieving this vital change. In particular, I highlight the sustained and sterling efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South. Her constituents will be proud of her, and victims and their families grateful for her hard work and determination. Over the years, she has campaigned for these changes, leading a debate just last month on this very topic. I also praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South welcomes the changes that the Bill will make. I also pay tribute to the right hon.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I thank the Minister for her approach. I am pleased to speak to Government new clause 45 and new clause 15, which offer important updates to the language and content of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. After so many years of deliberation, I am glad that the Government have constructively concluded that legislative action is needed to protect victims of spiking and to better ensure that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes face justice. I take the opportunity to note that since the Government’s statement in July, in which they said that they had begun to consider legislative action to introduce a specific offence of spiking in the light of concerns that continued to be expressed by parliamentarians, we have moved on significantly.”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T3. What assessment has the Minister made of the results of private sector trials in relation to the introduction of a four-day week? Will he meet me in due course to discuss the results of those trials?”
House of Commons25 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister only earlier extolled the virtues of devolution. In fact, page 29 of the 2019 Tory manifesto said that the “ambition is for full devolution across England, building on the successful devolution of powers to city region mayors” and others. How does that laudable aim fit with the Government’s shocking attempts, through threats and bullying tactics, to strangle the ability of local councils such as South Cambridgeshire District Council to trial a four-day week and other money-saving initiatives?”
House of Commons22 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q12. The Prime Minister has been very keen to take credit for falling inflation in previous months. Will he now take responsibility for today’s rise?”
House of Commons17 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure seems to be in contradiction to the position that many police forces are in? Because they lack resource capacity, they are withdrawing from dealing with issues relating to mental health and are saying, “We don’t have the capacity to do it.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure will put more pressure on police forces at a time when they are having to withdraw from some operational interventions?”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the point that the Minister made in his intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is circuitous? The reason why the police were involved in mental health interventions in the past, although they are pulling away from them, was that there were such strains and stresses on the health service and local government that they had to fill the gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is getting to the farcical stage, with gaps in resources left, right and centre?”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that everyone in this room agrees, notwithstanding the current debate among some Government Members in relation to the ECHR more broadly, that article 8 is pretty uncontentious. What is perhaps more contentious is where it is breached. It is important that we keep that in mind.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” As paragraph 2 above sets out, it is unlawful under the Act for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention right, unless it is compelled or permitted by statute to do otherwise. There is an excellent lecture by Robert Walker entitled “The English Law of Privacy: an Evolving Human Right”, which is well worth a perusal.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendments 61, 58 and 59 are linked, but I will speak first to amendment 61, a thoughtful amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. I want to address an issue relating to the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European convention on human rights into UK law, with particular reference to section 6, “Acts of public authorities”, which came into force in October 2000. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am concerned, for the purposes of the amendment, the right to respect for private and family life informs the relevant police powers and sets them in context. Article 8 of the convention states: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have indicated, the College of Policing is already well versed in the production of codes of practice, including—to name just a couple—those on the use of the police national computer and the law enforcement data service and on armed policing and the use of less lethal weapons. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and I have made about the amendments. As my hon. Friend says, if the Minister will not accept the amendments, we ask him for an assurance that the spirit of them, if not the letter, will be included in the Bill. I know that the Minister is always equitable in these matters, and I am sure he will give careful consideration to the well-thought-out and considered views expressed by my hon. Friend.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A review after a couple of years, to ensure consistency, is important. I agree with amendment 59, which would require the College of Policing to produce a code of practice in relation to the use of the powers. The College of Policing often talks about using “evidence-based knowledge in everything we develop”. That is crucial, so I am sure that it would welcome my hon. Friend’s proposal. It is important that the modus operandi of the police officer or constable be guided by authorised professional practice guidelines, which the College of Policing has, to ensure that their interventions are as appropriate as possible. That is all the more important in the light of the challenging circumstances in which some powers will be used.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us say that in the first five or six months of last year, there were about 50 or 60 bike thefts in my constituency and that half of those bikes had a locator on them. Although they may have a “stolen” bike in their home, people are not used to the police just turning up, going into the shed and getting the bike, so we must explain why we are doing that. It is important to have a review after a couple of years to ensure that my constituents know that they will not be on the receiving end of a disproportionate intervention by the authorities. I have no reason to believe that the powers will be used indiscriminately or outside the spirit of our discussions today, but we live in a democracy and we want to live in a cohesive society, so it is important that we have checks and balances.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has laid out the context for amendments 58 and 59 with thoughtfulness and with consideration, as he did for amendment 61. I agree with him that seeking a review within two years or thereabouts of the application of the powers is really important. It is important to ensure that when we give additional powers to the police, we ensure that the operation, implementation and use of those powers are subject to review. I think we would all agree that it would be beneficial on various levels, including operationally and in policy terms, to step back after a period of time and take a look at the implementation of the powers. Notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend has described the powers as narrow, people will not be used to them.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is a danger that we will get mission creep and, more importantly, that the public will see it as such? As time moves on, we will get another bit, another bit and another bit.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I heard the Minister’s intervention, but I am increasingly concerned about the point I made about mission creep and proportionality. That is what we must bear in mind. Would my hon. Friend agree? This partly goes back to amendments 61, 58 and 59: let us be as precise and specific as we can—in fact, let us have some control rather than this mission creep, and always have human rights and the question of proportionality in the back of our minds.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are dealing with a vast area, and this must be set in that wider context. Perhaps the Minister can go off and think this through, outside this Criminal Justice Bill, and set in process a review of the whole question of artificial intelligence and so on, as part of crime reduction, crime prevention and crime detection.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We can all come up with our examples, whether they be of rapists or a missing person, for example—who would not want to find a missing person who might have been missing for years and who we are trying to find? That is not the issue. We have used DNA in the past, and we all think it is wonderful, but it is used within parameters. Yes, let us have CCTV and facial recognition, but they have to be used within a certain context. Then there is body-worn video and the move towards using algorithms in the detection and prevention of crime —and, in some places, the deterrence of crime—and also the issues around AI. I do not think there is a problem with that at all, but it has to be set in a context. We should not take a piecemeal approach to the whole question of technology.”
House of Commons16 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗