Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, in supporting the amendment originally put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to whom we on this side of the House send our condolences for her sad loss. We certainly appreciate that the police should have powers to deal with those who use face coverings to conceal their identity during public demonstrations. Demonstrators involved in intimidatory or violent protests often wear masks or balaclavas, as the noble Baroness said, which hide most of the face. As has been said, that can serve the double purpose of disguising identity and adding to a sense of heightened intimidation. However, as has already been referenced, there are powers in place to deal with this issue in Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, although the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, said that she thought that they were insufficient. They were amended most recently in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. So, the current situation is that if the police believe that activities may take place in an area that may involve the commission of offences, an officer of or above the rank of inspector may give an authorisation for police officers within a given area for a period of up to 24 hours. Within the area and for the period, the police officer has the power to require the removal of face coverings worn for the purpose of concealing identity and to seize any such items. The officer must be satisfied in each case that the face covering is being worn wholly or mainly to conceal identity. These powers are not restricted to public assemblies or processions, although the police are most likely to use them in those situations. For example, earlier this year the police issued warnings under Section 60AA for the removal of face coverings during a confrontation between hunt stewards and anti-hunt protestors. The new clause is limited to situations involving large gatherings of people, so it would be of little use where, for example, individuals wearing balaclavas are congregating and the police anticipate that they may be planning a fight. It is defective in that sense. There are a number of other defects with the proposed new clause. By making it a substantive offence for a person to wear a mask, cowl, disguise or even carry or possess a mask, the new clause treads on the difficult territory of definitions, which I think was the main focus of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. What is actually meant by a ““mask””, a ““cowl””, a ““disguise”” or to ““otherwise conceal”” one’s features? A person could easily conceal their features by placing a wet towel on their face during a rally on a hot summer’s day. Their intention might be quite lawful—to cool down rather than to conceal their identity—but the new clause does not make this distinction and puts the onus on the individual to show that they had reasonable excuse to put a towel over their face or head. I have my own example of this. Thinking back, I recall going on a demonstration wearing a Groucho Marx mask with a flashing red nose and whirling bow tie. My intention was to add to the levity of the event, not to cause distress or intimidation. It certainly made the police officers laugh. Questions of definition and appropriateness come to mind. Another example might be someone attending a sporting event on a cold day. They might put a scarf around their nose and mouth to keep warm. Arguably they have concealed their features, but not necessarily with the intention of hiding their identity. To our thinking, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the wording of the current legislation is clearer in that the police can require a person to remove any item which the constable reasonably believes they are wearing wholly or mainly for the purposes of concealing their identity; that is, it is the constable’s judgment that the person is intending to conceal his identity. Subsection (2) cites a number of exceptions to the offence, but in doing so makes the offence confusing and difficult to enforce. Subsection (2)(b) excludes the wearing of masks, "““at any carnival…or similar entertainment””," from the offence. While I can see the sense in ensuring that participants in a carnival, most of whom will be wearing decorative costumes and headgear, are not caught, the same cannot be said of onlookers or a general crowd, some of whom might be minded to cause trouble. They might find the wearing of masks very useful indeed. Subsection (2)(c) provides a defence for, "““the wearing of veils…for religious reasons””." That is an understandable exemption, but there could be significant issues with it. The Government recognise that requiring Muslim women to remove their veil is sensitive. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice A draws attention to the need for caution in respect of face coverings which are worn for legitimate reasons, such as the wearing of veils by Muslim women. The officer must be satisfied in each case that the face covering is being worn wholly or mainly to conceal identity before he requires a person to remove the item. The code also advises that where there may be religious sensitivities about the removal of such items, the officer should permit the item to be removed out of public view. The code goes on to advise that, where practicable, the item should be removed in the presence of an officer of the same sex as the person and out of sight of anyone of the opposite sex. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, very trustingly said that she left it to the Government to seek the views of police officers on law enforcement. That is quite proper. We have sought the informal view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which points out that, operationally, there is little pressure for such a provision from officers responsible for policing such incidents. The existing legislation is regularly utilised and appears to be effective in dealing with individuals wearing masks or other items used to frustrate means of identification. The Government believe that police powers should be targeted at events where crimes are likely to take place. We also believe that it should not be a criminal offence per se to wear a mask or other face covering. Rather, a police officer should have the power to require a person whom he reasonably believes is using a mask or other face covering to conceal his identity to remove it and to seize the item. If the person refuses, that person is then committing a criminal offence. The policing of public events is a delicate balance between protecting the rights of those going about their lawful business and permitting lawful protest. The police at the scene of any protest or public rally are best placed to anticipate whether offences are likely to be committed and whether demonstrators are using facial coverings to conceal their identity. I have already covered the points on legislation and I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the sensitive way in which she raised, and put on one side, the issue of veils. In broad measure I agree with what she said on the subject. I accept that the debate about the veil and the terms in which it has been conducted is entirely legitimate and I am sure we all have our own views on it. But that should not have a bearing on the outcome of the amendment. There is scope for confusion and the noble Baroness dealt with that very wisely when referring to its potential impact on different holy orders. With those comments, I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, will feel content to withdraw her amendment.