(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
“Stop and searchIn section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of, or after, violence)— (a) in paragraph (a) omit “serious”, and(b) in paragraph (aa)(i) omit “serious”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would lower the threshold for stop and search to “violence” rather than “serious violence”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 411 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. The amendment was championed by my honourable friend Matt Vickers in Committee in the other place.
The amendment alters the statutory threshold for the exercise of the powers under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section permits a police officer of at least the rank of inspector to authorise stop and search powers within a defined locality for a period of 24 hours. Where such an authorisation has been given, a police officer may stop any member of the public to search them for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments without suspicion of the commission of an offence—so, essentially, it allows for a temporary adjustment to standard stop and search powers.
The current test that must be met is for the officer of sufficient rank to reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area. Our amendment would lower the threshold so that the police would be able to use Section 60 powers where there is a reasonable likelihood of violence, not serious violence. The fundamental principle behind this amendment is that the police should be able to act where there is a threat of violence—any form of violence—without being required to weigh the seriousness of that violence. This would remove the more subjective element of the test.
We know that stop and search powers are highly effective in combating crime and preventing violent offences. In the year ending March 2025, there were a total of 528,582 stops and searches conducted by officers in England and Wales. This represented a slight decrease of 1.4% from the previous year. Of those, 5,572 were conducted under Section 60 powers, which actually represented an increase of 5.4%. This is welcome; I am pleased to see the police making good use of their powers. But, given that there were 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury recorded by the police in the year ending June 2025, that the figure that the ONS has given shows no statistically significant change compared with the previous year, and that there were still 51,527 knife offences, there is more work that needs to be done. Lowering the threshold for the use of Section 60 is another tool that the Government could utilise in their efforts to crack down on the use of offensive weapons and the incidence of violence. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench. At this juncture, I also thank the Committee for its forbearance when I was not able to move my previous amendment on mobile phone theft. I put on record my warmest thanks to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for moving it so eloquently on that occasion.
This is an issue about the difference between “serious violence” and “violence”, but the wider context is the fact that the UK has a knife crime problem. In London, the number of incidents up to June 2025 was 15,639, which was an increase of nearly 72% from the data recorded in 2015-16. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the number of stop and search encounters peaked at the end of the last Labour Government and dramatically decreased under the two previous Governments. Between 2003 and 2011, stop and search numbers increased, peaking at 1.2 million, but by 2018 this had fallen by 77%. The number of arrests resulting from stop and search encounters had fallen from 120,000 to 48,000.
The fact is that there is significant evidence that stop and search does demonstrably have an impact on the incidence of knife crime, and therefore reduces crime. In a study released in 2025, the two criminologists Alexis Piquero and Lawrence Sherman analysed data between 2008 and 2023, and found that stop and search encounters were successful in reducing deaths and injuries related to weapons. The conclusion of the study was that
“increased stop and search encounters can significantly reduce knife-related injuries and homicides in public places”.
Evidence from a number of bodies and think tanks, including Policy Exchange, suggests that, while there may be a range of causal factors, a link between rates of knife crime and rates of stop and search exists. As the rate of stop and search decreases, the amount of knife crime increases. As stop and search rises, the amount of knife crime falls. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Sir Stephen Watson, said last year:
“If you don’t back your officers to do stop and search, they will stop doing stop and search. And if you stop doing stop and search, you’ll see street robberies going up”.
The issue is the difference between “serious violence” and “violence” within that context. My simple point to the Committee is that, if we want to take weapons off the street and prevent incidents of knife crime and other crime, we have to increase stop and search. Therefore, you have to give warranted officers the legal underpinning and the authority to make the appropriate decisions for stop and search. In 2023, there were 5,014 occasions when a police officer found a weapon or firearm when looking for a different prohibited item. In 3,221 of those cases, they were looking for drugs. This is a case of effective policing and not just getting lucky. So, if they could stop for “violence”, they might find weapons that could have led to a more serious situation. If not, there is a potential for people to just walk away.
On that basis, it is wise for the Government to consider this amendment, because it allows flexibility in operational policing. Fundamentally, it will prevent crime and may even in the long run prevent serious injury or death. Therefore, I invite Ministers and the Committee to give this amendment their strong support.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 411, because it brings clarity and accountability to the exceptional power in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This is not a call to strengthen police powers; it is a call to describe them accurately, so the public understand their narrow scope and the safeguards that constrain them.
Section 60 is triggered only when
“a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes”
one of a small number of factors: that incidents of violence may take place in a locality; that a weapon used in a recent incident is being carried locally; or that people are carrying weapons without good reason; and that there has already been an incident of serious violence. The statute requires the authorisation to be for
“any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours”.
These are tight operational limits.
Changing the definition from “serious violence” to “violence” keeps all the safeguards that make this power exceptional rather than just routine: the inspector-level threshold; the written and recorded authorisation; the geographic and temporal limits; the ability to seize weapons; and the requirement to provide records to those stopped. Those are not peripheral details; they are the legal guardrails that protect civil liberties while enabling targeted public safety action.
I simply ask: where is the dividing line between violence and serious violence? If someone gets stabbed multiple times and it is life-threatening, we would all agree that is serious violence, but what about the person who gets stabbed once and suffers a non-life-threatening cut? Is that merely violence and so does not count? That is why we have to change this definition to any violence, no matter how serious it may be called. This is not a wide-ranging opening of the stop and search powers applying everywhere for all time. Using “violence” in operational documents with an explicit cross-reference to the Section 60 triggers reduces confusion with broader strategic programmes labelled “serious violence”. It prevents the normalisation of suspicionless searches and makes it easier for Parliament, oversight bodies and the public to scrutinise each authorisation against the statutory test.
This amendment is modest, practical and proportionate. It highlights the statutory safeguards and does not remove any of them, but it gives the police a sensible power to save lives and prevent injury where they think that there may be more violence. I urge the Committee and the Minister to support Amendment 411.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the wording as it is in the Bill. The word “serious” is quite important. Stop and search, particularly in the London area, has been abused. You are supposed to stop somebody because of “reasonable” grounds to suspect, but as somebody who was stopped and searched six times, and every time I did not have anything they thought I would have, I see it as a sort of overpolicing.
It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not here, because when he became the chief police officer in this place, he realised that some of this was not working and was antagonising communities, not delivering the result that was expected. The Bill is worded in terms of “serious”; the amendment tries to lower the threshold. As the intention of the Bill is to stop serious crime, “serious” to me is quite important. I do not support the amendment and would like to retain the wording in the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and share some of his concerns about this amendment. Before I share those concerns, I ask the noble Lords opposite to explain the relationship and potential contradictions between this amendment and their amendment in the next group on digital identity. It is a shame that these amendments do not sit in a single group, because it would have been easier to expose the thinking behind and relationship between them. That amendment, prohibiting the police requiring someone to show a digital identity document in the event that they are stopped and searched, could have been drafted by my former colleagues at Liberty. This amendment, on diluting protections against arbitrary stop and search, would certainly not have been drafted by my former colleagues at Liberty, so noble Lords opposite seem to be pointing in two different directions when it comes to the relationship between the citizen and the state on the street.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
As usual, the noble Baroness is making a cogent and persuasive case, but I do not think she concedes that we are not talking about suspicionless searches; we are talking about an expectation that violence will happen—there will be a violent incident rather than a seriously violent incident.
I just leave her with the figures: in London, from 2021, there were 311,352 stop and searches, and they had fallen to 135,739 in 2024. At the same time, there was an 86% rise in knife crime. The argument that those of us on this side are making is that there has to be a balance. None of us wants racially profiled overpolicing, but at the same time, we have to find a reason why when we reduce stop and searches, there is an inevitable increase in knife crime.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord, but with respect, this provision relates to suspicionless stop and search. That is a term we use to describe a stop and search power that does not require reasonable suspicion that the person who is about to be stopped and searched is a criminal, is equipped or whatever it is.
The power in Section 60, therefore, is a suspicionless stop and search power, which is why it needs to be circumscribed and why there have to be certain conditions met before an area can be designated, because the normal law of the land, as noble Lords will recognise, is that anywhere in the land a constable can stop and search an individual whom they reasonably suspect of carrying a knife or being otherwise involved in criminality.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Section 60 in and of itself is a special circumstance, so whether it is suspicionless needs to be looked at in that context, and I would just like to offer the noble Baroness this context. There is no such thing as non-serious violence. Let us be very clear, when we are talking about the impact of knife carrying in particular, that any knife that has ended up in the body of a person has been shown to multiple members of the community and been used to create terror before that tragedy has happened. The idea that a stop and search is only potent when it leads to an arrest or a charge is simply incorrect. Having been a youth worker for over 35 years, I have worked with some of the most gang-involved people in the entire country, and they will tell you that they will be armed because they do not believe they are going to be stopped. Every time you do a stop and search, it sends a ripple, particularly to those who need to hear the ripple, that it could happen, so it lowers their propensity to go armed. Just because it does not lead to a charge, that does not mean it has not been effective.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but I return to my central point, which is, as he pointed out in his intervention, that the normal law of the land is for stop and search on reasonable suspicion that the individual in question is a cause for concern: “I have reasonable suspicion that that person may be carrying a knife, et cetera, or otherwise involved in criminality”. These are special powers given to a relatively junior police officer; this is not a chief constable, let alone a magistrate or a judge. It allows a police officer to change the law of the land for a time-limited period for that area, to change what the stop and search regime is in that area. It is quite right that a power of that kind be tightly circumscribed because of the problems that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, spoke about and because citizens do have rights to go about their business without fear of arbitrary stop and search.
This brings me back to my question about the relationship between Amendment 411, which is in this group on its own, and Amendment 415, which noble Lords opposite have in a separate group, and the apparent dichotomy between them. Amendment 415 says that, where there is a stop and search, an officer should not be allowed to require the presentation of digital ID; it does not even say “compulsory digital ID”. So if, as I think the Government now propose, digital ID becomes available to people to partake of, if they want, as a more convenient method of ID, we are going to have circumstances where noble Lords opposite will have more routine stop and search, but when a stop and search happens, an officer would not be able to ask the person searched to identify themselves if all they have with them is digital ID. That seems like a contradiction to me. I, for one, have always been very concerned and opposed to compulsory single identifiers, not least for the reason that they will lead to routine stop and search with people required to identify themselves to the police when they have done nothing wrong. I should be very interested if noble Lords opposite could square the relationship between this amendment and the one that follows.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, there is now considerable evidence about how stop and search powers are used in practice, their impact and long-term consequences, not least in building trust, which is so vital for effective community policing. Stop and search powers, especially under Section 60—suspicionless powers —already fall disproportionately on marginalised communities, particularly black and minority ethnic young men. Lowering the threshold from “serious violence” to “violence” can only increase the frequency and breadth of those powers and with it the disproportionality. This is not an abstract civil liberties concern but goes directly to trust and confidence.
It is also just 18 months since the Home Office accepted the findings of a police inspectorate report that identified serious shortcomings in the use of Section 60 powers, including low arrest and seizure rates for weapons, inadequate training and failures to adhere to statutory duties, such as PACE Code A or voluntary frameworks such as College of Policing APP guidance.
From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the test for expanding intrusive powers is a simple one. Is there a clear and compelling operational case, supported by evidence, that the existing powers are inadequate and that widening them will improve outcomes without unacceptable collateral damage to rights and community relations? We do not believe that the case has been made here. What is on offer is a lower legal bar for the most intrusive stop and search powers we have, imposed on communities that already experience it acutely, with no serious account taken of the long-term impact on policing by consent. On that basis, we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting short debate, and I thank my noble friends—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful that we are trying to make some progress—it is really good news—and I look forward to even more progress as we carry on today, but if the noble Lord will allow me, I will respond to the debate first.
The noble Lord has made some points that I accept, and he had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. However, I hope I can persuade him that the amendment is not necessary, for the reasons that I will outline in a moment.
Stop and search remains a vital tool in our efforts to reduce knife crime and protect communities. The Government fully support its use, but, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, it has to be done in a fair and effective manner. We want officers to have confidence in exercising those powers, but also for the community to have confidence as well.
The amendment concerns Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which, as was outlined, allows senior officers to authorise searches for offensive weapons without reasonable suspicion for a limited time in a defined area where serious violence has occurred or is anticipated. The powers are purposely tightly framed and tightly targeted. Section 60 is intended for exceptional circumstances where serious violence is anticipated or has occurred. As this is a power to search for offensive weapons such as knives, “serious violence” remains the appropriate threshold. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to reduce that threshold in response to what might be minor scuffles, which is what the noble Lord’s amendment would in practice achieve.
There is no legal evidence that the threshold is an undue barrier to use this power. In 2008-09, under the same rules, police conducted over 150,000 Section 60 searches, while last year there were 5,288, which is a significant drop. That shows that the law has not changed in that period of time, but the issue is really one of proportionality, targeting and police practice. That is the best way forward, which helps give confidence when it is needed but also gives confidence to communities at large; the noble Lord’s amendment would widen the scope considerably. I have to say to the noble Lord that that does not mean that we are not interested in tackling knife crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Bailey—he has gone now; no, he is back, so I will let him resume his place—made a number of points about what we need to do on knife crime. I say to him and to other noble Lords who have raised issues today that the use of smarter policing through hotspot patrols, the strong partnership with communities, and prevention initiatives such as Young Futures panels are all ways in which we can help prevent knife crime without necessarily scaling down the amount of stop and search that happens and making it more available. We can already see that those approaches we have taken have worked: knife homicides are down 20%; overall, knife crime has fallen for the first time in four years; and hospital admissions for knife crime have dropped by 10%. That progress suggests that changes to existing stop and search Section 60 powers would not necessarily make progress on knife crime.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister could help us. I listened carefully to his remarks but I am not sure that I really understood the difference, as the Government define it, between “violence” and “serious violence”. We all perhaps have some ideas in our minds, and it has been a balanced and considered debate on both sides, but could the Minister help the Committee by helping us to define rather more clearly the difference between “violence” and “serious violence”, and how that might affect the use of these powers? I would be very much obliged if he did that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Section 60 powers are in operation and have been there for some significant time. As I shared with the Committee a moment ago, the use of those powers by police officers was significantly higher in the mid to late 2000s than it is now. That is because we are trying to ensure that there is operational guidance—not ministerial guidance—on the use of stop and search powers. Stop and search is seen by the police as a tool of last resort in an area where there is serious violence. I am not going to speculate for the noble Viscount on what that serious violence barrier is; that is an operational decision for the police at a local level in a particular circumstance.
The legislation is clear. The level of use has dropped because the police recognise that this is a tool of last resort which has to have the confidence of the community. I cannot differentiate between levels of violence in a way that may help the noble Viscount today, but the level of violence must be deemed at the time by a local senior police officer on the ground to be sufficiently worrying that he or she determines an area in which stop and search powers will operate. That may not answer the point, but I hope it is of some help to the noble Viscount.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
On that issue, notwithstanding the fact that these powers have to be sanctioned by a police inspector, they are often accompanied by a public information initiative from the police force concerned, and their time limit is 24 hours. If this amendment were accepted, would it not give the police the opportunity to use these powers at football matches, at which there is a chance not of serious violence but of public disorder leading to lower-level violence? In the last year or so, they have used them 357 times. Therefore, they would not necessarily use the more draconian dispersal orders which are sometimes used at football matches. What this side is asking for is more flexibility not just in respect of knife crime but of public order-related events such as football matches.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say this as best I can to the Committee: to my knowledge, there has been no request from the police for that reduction in threshold to allow them to exercise further stop and search powers. Indeed, as has been shown over the last 15 or 16 years, the use of stop and search has significantly decreased to around the 5,000 figure, as I mentioned earlier. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that the police themselves want to exercise that power to control crowds at football matches. I will leave it at that, if I may.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me on this issue? I think he does, because he said earlier, when the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was momentarily not with us, that minor scuffles are not serious violence and that stabbings and so on clearly are. To my own mind, a common assault between people outside the pub on a Friday night probably does not meet the threshold of serious violence, but knife robbery et cetera does.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I did indicate that minor scuffles would not be seen as serious violence. I am not trying to determine from this Dispatch Box the use of a Section 60 power by a police officer on the ground because of the level of violence the police have witnessed and wish to act upon. If we look at the figure 16 years ago, it was significantly higher than in the 12 months prior to now, at just over 5,000. The law has not changed but, going back to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, police practice and police assessments have meant that they do not need to use that power. In parallel with that, the Government believe that if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall. With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has become an even more interesting debate, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.
I say to the Minister and to noble Lords that this amendment is intended to help the Government. Regardless of our politics, everyone would like to see a reduction in violent offences, and increasing police use of stop and search is an incredibly powerful tool to do just that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that there is nothing wrong with stop and search. Stop and search is one of the most useful tools in the box. Having spent 32 years on front-line policing in London, I know that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, it is an issue of training and adherence to the codes of practice. There is no question about that in my mind. That is what police need to be concentrating on when it comes to the issues around stop and search.
Lowering the threshold to the likelihood of violence would enable officers to intervene earlier to prevent harm, protect the public and de-escalate potentially dangerous situations before they result in injury or worse, and before becoming serious violence cases. I know full well that officers often face rapidly evolving situations in which it is difficult to draw a clear line between violence and serious violence. I hope that the Government take this away and reflect, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Prohibition on police use of digital ID(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.(2) After section 6 insert—“6A Police not to require digital identity document(1) If, at any time, His Majesty’s Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, a constable may not—(a) require a person to produce a digital identity card on request,(b) ask a person to produce a digital identity document for inspection, or(c) use any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence.(2) In this section a “digital identity document” means a document which—(a) is issued to an individual by a relevant authority,(b) is available only digitally, and(c) contains or records information which could be used to identify the person.”.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has become a cliché to say that a week is a long time in politics, but it is an idiom that forever rings true. We began a couple of weeks ago with the Government still firmly wed to the idea that digital ID cards were going to save us all, and we ended the week with the policy relegated to a footnote in future history books. As with everything the Government touch these days, the digital ID policy had become completely toxic and incredibly unpopular, forcing them into the U-turn. It is a U-turn I am supportive of, and I am pleased that the Government have finally seen sense and ditched this policy.
I suppose I should be grateful to the Minister for somewhat negating the need for this amendment. It is quite easy being in opposition when the Government do your job for you.
The amendment is intended as a safeguard to prevent the police being able to require a person to show them a digital identity card when—or should I say if—such a scheme is ever introduced. Fundamentally, this whole debate comes down to who we are as a nation. Britain has never been a country where, in peacetime, one must have an identity card simply because the state mandates it.
I heard much Newspeak about the policy from Government Ministers soon after the announcement. Following the immediate backlash, many started claiming that it was not going to be mandatory after all, and that it was simply mandatory if you wanted to work. The Prime Minister said at the announcement of the policy:
“Let me spell that out: you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that”.
But requiring everyone who wants a job to have digital ID does make it mandatory—we all need to go to work to earn a living. We heard the justification change more times than we could count. First, it was needed to stop illegal migration and illegal working. That argument was soon blown out of the water by the fact that employers are already required to undertake right-to-work checks, and those who violate the law already were never going to suddenly start conducting such checks simply because of the existence of digital ID. Then we heard that it was necessary for efficiency and joined-up services. I can only wonder what the next justification would have been.
That is why I tabled this amendment. It was always a probing amendment, but we must make these arguments to stand up for the principle. The Government might have U-turned on this now, but what is to say that we do not see this pernicious policy creep back towards becoming mandatory in the future? In such a scenario, having such a legislative guardrail against potential police use of digital ID would make sense.
Fundamentally, the principle is that Britain is not a country where police officers require the presentation of mandatory ID cards. A person should be able, if they so wish, to go about their lives with as minimal interference by the state as possible. Digital ID cards were a wrong-headed and poorly thought-through policy, costing large sums of money that we do not have and coming at the expense of fundamental British values. I am glad to see the back of the mandatory element, but we must guard against any future expansions of this scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am, of course, also delighted that this amendment is now unnecessary and irrelevant, but it fits into some broader concerns that have been expressed in Committee, such as the planned nationwide rollout of police-operated live facial recognition cameras and a whole range of technology used to introduce a surveillance state. The use of digital ID would have not only created that very unpleasant checking of one’s papers by the police but introduced an element of technology which, without being anti-technology, could be seen as problematic.
I noted and would like the Minister’s response to an interview that the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, did with Sir Tony Blair last week, in which she talked about AI and technology having a transformative impact on
“the whole of the law and order space”,
which would therefore mean that digital ID was not totally off the table. The Home Secretary said
“my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times”—
a rather chilling declaration, I must say. At this stage, as we are not going to have to discuss digital ID, that broad use of technology and surveillance might be something that the Minister could reassure us on specifically. It is good to see the back of digital ID, but I am not keen on the eyes of the state being on us at all times as a justification for tackling crime and disorder.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness: I read that quote as well and was very worried about it, and the idea that we should all aspire to total surveillance and living in a panopticon. When I saw that—it has been doing the rounds on social media—I assumed it was fake news. I cannot believe that from a Labour Cabinet Minister, even from a Home Secretary—we know funny things happen to people when they go in the Home Office; I was there myself for a bit. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will assure us when he responds that there is no question of building a total surveillance state or, indeed, Bentham’s panopticon. I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I am grateful to her for raising them.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for, I think, answering the question that I put to him in the previous group, which is that his objection is to a single compulsory identifier. I share his concerns if that is the problem. I would not want us all to have to carry a single compulsory identifier, digital or otherwise, which becomes a licence to live that you can have demanded of you at any time. The compulsory element was always the problem, not having an optional identifier —for instance, if you choose to have your passport or driving licence on your phone instead of as a physical document. I understand that even lots of noble Lords now pay for their refreshments with their mobile phone; this is the world that we live in. The problem is with a single compulsory identifier, not with the option of having a digital ID, as opposed to a paper ID. I hope he will nod and indicate that we are in the same place on that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 415 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which seeks to introduce a new safeguard for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regarding the potential future use of digital identification by law enforcement. I too am grateful for his explanation about the single identifier. I remind your Lordships that there were a number of amendments in some Home Office Bills about three years ago when the Home Office was trying to get access to DVLA data and, indeed, to personal medical data for anyone who might have been present at the scene of a possible crime—not the victim or the possible perpetrator, but anyone who was literally just present. I am glad that, in opposition, his party has decided to change its approach on this. It is very welcome.
I also echo the good news that the amendment is, I hope, fully redundant because of the Government’s announcement, but I look forward to making sure that some of the very minor concerns being expressed are recognised by the Government.
This amendment would provide the protection to individuals, should the Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, that a constable would be expressly prohibited from requiring a person to produce such a document on request or asking for it to be produced for inspection. Crucially, it would also prevent the police using
“any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence”.
That echoes the amendments that our Benches tabled to earlier Home Office Bills.
We on these Benches are fundamentally opposed to any form of compulsory digital ID. We must ensure that a digital identity scheme does not become a tool for “papers, please” policing in a digital format. As organisations such as Big Brother Watch have warned, the expansion of digital identification, such as the proposed access to the DVLA database for facial recognition, risks creating a huge and disproportionate surveillance power that, in effect, places the majority of law-abiding citizens in a permanent digital police line-up without their consent. Can the Minister confirm that it is the case that surveillance will not be used?
The Government have previously suggested that digital ID could serve as an alternative form of ID for specific purposes such as age verification for online sales. However, without the explicit prohibition contained in Amendment 415, there is a significant risk of mission creep. If we allow the police routinely to use digital ID as part of their investigative toolkit, we fundamentally shift the relationship between the individual and the state. This amendment is not about obstructing modern policing; it is about ensuring that privacy rights and civil liberties remain the default. We must codify these protections now to ensure that any future digital identity framework cannot be weaponised into a widespread surveillance system.
From these Benches we are glad about the Government U-turn, but we need more detail to ensure that those protections remain. It is for Parliament and not for operational police discretion to set the boundaries for how the state identifies its citizens. I urge the Committee to support this amendment and hope that the Ministers will give us an encouragement that it is not needed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the case for Amendment 415. He says a week is a long time in politics, but I am going to take him all the way back to the announcement on 26 September from the Prime Minister that the Government were intending to introduce a national digital ID scheme for all British and Irish citizens and those with permission to be in the United Kingdom.
The national digital ID will empower people in their lives and their interactions with the state. It will make it easier to access public services, cut back on bureaucratic processes and support fairness across society. The national digital ID scheme will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in due course. In the short term, we will examine options for appropriate oversight and safeguards of the digital ID, with a public consultation set to launch soon.
As has already been said publicly, the digital ID will not be required when a person is stopped by the police using stop and search powers. This was picked up in this debate and the debate on the previous amendment by, among others, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It will not be mandatory for those eligible to obtain the digital ID and, as such, there will be no penalty for not having one.
Law enforcement use of data is governed by Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This places a range of obligations on law enforcement, including requirements that law enforcement processing of data must be necessary and proportionate, for a specific purpose and not excessive. All three noble Baronesses who spoke raised concerns over a move towards a surveillance state—certainly, that was the theme of the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. To be clear, the new digital ID will not be used for mass surveillance of the population and will be designed in accordance with high standards of security and privacy. We will ensure safeguards are in place to make sure that any access to data is both necessary and proportionate.
As I said, the public consultation will be launched in the coming weeks. This will ensure that any legislation includes appropriate safeguards. I am sure that, without much prompting, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, will be first in the queue to contribute to that public consultation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can the noble Lord clarify something? Initially, those of us who spoke suggested that possibly this amendment was not needed because digital ID was not an immediate issue and was not going to be brought in as a single identifier. So far, the Minister’s arguments have been a justification for digital ID. Is it back on? It would be useful for campaigners to understand that, let alone those of us here. When campaigners argue that digital ID is part of a surveillance state and so on, one wants to say, “Don’t be too paranoid”. I am now getting paranoid myself, having been told that the digital ID scheme had been put to one side, that it has sneaked back into the House of Lords in response to an amendment that most of us thought was not necessary.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am going to try to stay roughly on the topic of the amendment, rather than turn this into a wider debate on the introduction of digital ID, because I am not entirely sure that my briefing will cover all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has addressed.
To be absolutely clear, we are not stepping back from the idea of introducing a digital ID. On 15 January, there was an Urgent Question on the issue in the other place that was repeated here. We have been very clear that we are introducing a digital ID programme. There are two core objectives: first, to make accessing public services easier and to make the state work better for ordinary people, and, secondly, to aid with right-to-work checks and catching those who are working illegally. To be clear, that is still happening. As I say, there is a public consultation coming that will set out the scope of the scheme, and those who wish to respond will be able to respond in those terms.
To respond directly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, around the use of ID by policing and enforcement agencies, there are already safeguards in place to ensure that the use of any such measures is balanced against the need to protect individual privacy rights. That will be the same for digital ID as it is for existing police access to information contained within the passport and immigration databases, for example, which is done in specific circumstances where that is lawful, necessary and proportionate. An example of a legal safeguard already in place is contained in the UK Borders Act 2007, which makes it clear that holders of e-visas cannot be required to carry them at all times.
I think I have already touched on the issue of stop and search, but I cannot quite remember because of the flow of the interventions. To be clear, the digital ID will not be used as part of stop and search, and police officers will never demand to see it as part of stop and search. However, consistent with current powers where immigration enforcement are carrying out an enforcement visit or warrant, they have powers to ensure that all those who are employed have the right to work in the UK. These powers include the ability to demand ID, take biometrics, and detain, search and seize property to assist their investigation. I hope that provides some clarity on that point.
Given the considerations that I have set out, particularly the fact that the introduction of the digital ID scheme will require its own legislation in future, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
At the time when this amendment was tabled, the Government were pressing ahead with plans that would have fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. The prospect of compulsory digital ID, coupled with the possibility of routine police access to digital identity data, raised serious concerns about privacy and subsequent state overreach. It was precisely because of those concerns and the lack of apparent or clear safeguards that the amendment was necessary. Indeed, I am still not clear from what the Minister said in his response as to whether it will be introduced in future or whether it will be compulsory.
Since then, as we have heard, the Government have performed a U-turn, announcing that digital ID will no longer be mandatory. The amendment before us was therefore not speculative or hypothetical; it was a direct response to a live and deeply unpopular government policy. We can only hope that this sudden enthusiasm for reversing course is not confined to digital ID alone. While the U-turn means that the immediate threat that prompted it has receded, the wider issue remains unresolved. The Government’s approach to digital identity remains unclear and may change again before Report. For the time being, I will withdraw the amendment, but it is something that we will continue to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 416 would get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the police by covering their faces when breaking the law.
I was extremely grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me to discuss the various amendments to the Bill that I had tabled or supported. I endorse much of the Bill, as he knows, in its efforts to prevent and reduce crime. That includes the Government’s new offences on cycling and e-scooters, and the amendments discussed on 15 December and moved by the former Met Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, like me, felt that we could go further. I just hope that action will follow.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke so eloquently in that debate, may be amused to know that the comparison with the Wild West was a repeat of what I had said many months before. My reference to the Wild West was taken up by, I think, the Daily Mail, only to be requoted by the Mayor of London—no doubt because he agrees that it represents the problem well.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am generally with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and we have done an awful lot together to look at cyclists being held more accountable. On this, however, I am probably going to suggest an amendment to her amendment. As it stands, the problem with her amendment is that the police currently have the power to stop any vehicle on the road without reason. They can stop somebody with or without a mask, or for no reason at all. This power would therefore not add anything, given that the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, acknowledged, whether it be in the cool of the winter, or even sometimes on a cool summer’s day, there is a reason to wear a mask or a face covering if you are cycling, because it gets cold. We have probably all been there. However, something to look at in the future—perhaps on Report—is whether someone, having been stopped, can be ordered to remove their face mask. There is not an awful lot of point in stopping them and they can keep their face mask on if their identity is in question. That is also true for motorcyclists, who wear helmets. Their faces are obviously encased in a helmet and there is no power to ask them to remove the helmet. Most of them do, because it gets pretty uncomfortable after a few minutes—in fact, if you prolong the conversation long enough, they always take it off—but there is no power to compel them to do it. That may be something that could be considered in the future.
On the police needing powers to stop cyclists, there is no power to stop an e-scooter, but any vehicle on the road can be stopped by an officer for any reason—not the least of which is that the police are expected to direct traffic. That is one of the reasons that they are given the power to either redirect or stop vehicles. So, as it stands, I am not sure about this amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent and tightly drafted amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I say that it is tightly drawn because proposed new subsection (2) is about concealing one’s identity, not about wearing the clothes themselves: the scarf or the hat. I speak as a cyclist who frequently cycles in the winter, when of course you need to wear protective clothing to keep you warm. However, this is about allowing a police officer, or another person who is entitled to know your identity, to know your identity, and it is about failing to stop when required to do so by a constable.
I am glad that my noble friend mentioned the issue of live facial recognition. I am just about to finish my four-year term on the British Transport Police Authority. In terms of clear-up rates, one of the issues we have in unfortunately failing to tackle violence against women and girls—which, of course, is a government priority and a priority of the Department for Transport—is that we have way too many persistent, repeat offenders on bail who are travelling on the rail network and who are able to enter stations and get on trains. Live facial recognition, were it to be rolled out for a good reason, with proper checks and balances, would significantly reduce the incidence of those people being able to get on trains and Tubes and assault women and girls, and others. Live facial recognition is important because, if people are going to be wearing face coverings, that will naturally circumscribe the powers used in live facial recognition.
Rates of crime on bikes and scooters have gone up. Many people who are committing those crimes are hiding their identity and I believe that, in most cases, there is a legitimate reason for the police to stop them. In 2024, Sky News received figures from FoI requests that showed that crimes involving e-bikes and e-scooters had risen by more than 730% in the preceding five years. These crimes included theft, robbery, burglary, drug trafficking, stalking, rape, violent crimes and weapons offences. In 2023-24, 11,266 crimes were recorded that mentioned an e-bike or e-scooter—up from just 1,354 in 2019-20. These figures do not include data from the Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police—I know that West Midlands Police have been busy doing other things, not always to their great credit —so the actual numbers were likely higher.
On 30 December 2025, the Metropolitan Police reported that it had seized 37 e-bikes and scooters in an attempt to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. That resulted in 52 arrests and weapons being seized. Between January and December 2025, Merseyside Police seized 1,000 unregistered vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters and scramblers. It launched Operation Gears in July 2024 to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour linked specifically to bikes and scooters. In its words, two-wheeled vehicles
“are increasingly linked to serious criminal activity, including violence, robberies, and serious organised crime (SOC) offences”.
The Metropolitan Police has also produced reasonably new data—up to the end of 2023. They show that there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and a face covering was worn in over 1,000 of those. These statistics demonstrate that it is legitimate to link bikes and scooters to crimes. Therefore, if someone is covering their face specifically to avoid identity while using these vehicles, it does raise suspicion, and it most emphatically gives police a legitimate reason to exercise their due and proper powers. On that basis, I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as someone who regularly jumps out of the way on a pavement from e-bikes, electric scooters and so on, I think this amendment is probably very sensible, but we should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because, as far as I can see, it does not go sufficiently far. We need to add to it, perhaps on Report, a provision that the police can require someone to take their face covering off, because without that, I do not think it goes very far.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, in my experience, the fastest and most dangerous group of cyclists are Deliveroo and Uber Eats riders. That would be the case because they have to get as many deliveries in as they can. In my experience, an awful lot of them wear face masks. I would be interested to hear from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—we have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had to say—what you would begin to do about that. They have great big things on their backs saying Deliveroo or Uber Eats, but they drive fast and wear masks. Will the police stop them?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and her Amendment 416, because it addresses a very real and rapidly accelerating problem on our streets: the use of face coverings by criminals on e-bikes and e-scooters to hide their identity while committing thefts, robberies and drug-related offences. I did not know that the Mayor of London had stolen my noble friend’s “Wild West” quote; I have lots of pages of newspaper reports on the “Wild West”. We should make sure that it is properly attributed to her; she was the inventor of the slogan.
We are not dealing with petty opportunism here, but with organised, masked offenders using high-powered electric bikes capable of 50, 60 or even 70 miles per hour, weaving through pedestrians and traffic with impunity. That may partly be the answer to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I agree that the amendment may need to be tweaked on Report. We are not talking here about an ordinary man or woman on an ordinary bike pedalling along and wearing a mask to keep out the cold; we are talking about people on big electric bikes, often fat-tyre bikes, belting along at phenomenal speed, wearing balaclavas rather than masks. There is certainly an element of criminality; it is not just ordinary cyclists trying to protect themselves from catching flies while they are riding.
Police forces across the country report that these vehicles are now central to a surge in mobile phone snatching and associated criminality. The scale is stark. Mobile phone thefts have almost doubled to 83,000 a year, with London at the epicentre, recording 65,000 thefts in the last reporting period. The crimes are not only fast; they are deliberately anonymous. Officers and victims consistently describe offenders wearing balaclava masks and full facial coverings. Schools in London have issued warnings about males in balaclavas targeting children for their phones on the way to school. In Newcastle, residents report masked riders armed with crowbars and knives terrorising neighbourhoods, snatching phones and intimidating women walking home.
This is not a marginal issue; it is a pattern. The police are clear: illegal e-bikes and e-scooters are being used for “all sorts of criminality”, including drug dealing, robbery and organised theft. The City of London Police states explicitly that illegal e-bikes are frequently used to commit crimes such as phone snatching, and its targeted operations have reduced such offences by 40% in the square mile. But officers say that identification is the greatest barrier to enforcement. When a rider is masked, unregistered and travelling at 50 miles an hour, the chances of apprehension are vanishingly small. As we discussed the other day, I commend the Met unit using its own fast electric e-bikes to chase these guys on bikes.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, this is somewhat Groundhog Day for the Committee, as we have considered very similar amendments and issues on earlier days. All Peers who have spoken, including my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, me and many others, have agreed that there is a significant problem—we see it very much in London but also, I am sure, in other parts of the country—of people completely ignoring the Road Traffic Act and the police doing nothing about it, to be entirely frank.
I repeat the assertion that I made from these Benches: I have never, on a single occasion in the last two or three years, seen a policeman stopping a cyclist, an e-bike rider or a delivery rider for riding the wrong way down the street. This happens the whole time; it is now the norm. If you go out after 5 pm—I often walk into the West End from your Lordships’ House to go home—there are limitless delivery riders riding very fast on electric-powered bicycles. As the Committee may know, I ride an electric bike on occasion, but they ride without lights and the wrong way down the road. The police have the powers to stop them, but they do not do it.
I ask for some answer from the Minister about how we square that circle of enforcement, while respecting the division of powers between what the police are charged with—the independence of various police forces —and the will of Parliament. One way or another, we need to get to a point where the House is confident that this problem will be addressed. I am absolutely with my noble friend in what she is trying to do with her amendment, but there are certainly difficulties. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about how the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.
I am sure we will come back to these issues on Report, and there will be determined attempts to pass amendments to this Bill, but when the Minister winds up, can he please specifically address what confidence he can give, if this House and Parliament as a whole wish this issue to be addressed, about how that will translate into action, while respecting the independence of the police force, which has such a tough job to do, does so much of it so well and has many different priorities?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, this is Groundhog Day, and I fear we are rehearsing many of the points raised on earlier groups. We on these Benches do not support Amendment 416 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As we have heard, there are many reasons why someone might choose to wear a face covering while cycling or scooting, ranging from the practical to the health related. As we have heard, if it is cold weather, of course you are going to wear a scarf or a face covering to keep yourself warm and prevent wind burn. Quite frankly, in the recent cold weather, that might even prevent you getting frostbite while you are cycling along.
In urban areas, there are specific masks that people wear to tackle the pollution that we still have in many of our cities, to deal with and filter out pollutants, dust and exhaust fumes. How is that wrong? Why would we want to prevent people doing that? Likewise, if we have extreme heat, people sometimes wear masks because they want to block out pollen and other allergens, and also to protect themselves from UV rays. While in this Chamber we have heard often, in my experience so far, quite negative debate about cyclists, there are many cyclists here, and they will know that covering your face prevents bugs, dirt and small debris hitting their mouth or nose while they are riding. I am an occasional cyclist, and I wear sunglasses and wrap up warm when I am out cycling to protect myself from the glare and debris. It is practical. How would we make that a problem? Why is it a cause for concern? It is practical clothing for people who choose to cycle or scoot. Why are we treating those people as criminals?
There is a separate need for management of micromobility, which has come out in all these discussions. It would be good to hear from the Minister when we might expect some legislation around managing micromobility, the explosion of e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets, and the extension of trial after trial by the previous Government. But this amendment treats all cyclists and those riding scooters as criminals, rather than as individuals dressing for their mode of transport. I hope that the Government will agree with me and these Benches that it is disproportionate and not needed in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling Amendment 416, which I entirely support. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution.
The amendment, as my noble friend ably set out, would give constables the power to stop individuals cycling while wearing a face covering. Failing to do so would constitute an offence liable to a month’s imprisonment or a fine of up to £1,000. While I know that opposition to this amendment has claimed that this means police powers encroaching into an entirely innocuous activity, it is unfortunately now a necessary measure. What previously would have been a harmless and inoffensive act has been perverted by criminals into a means by which to commit crime and escape justice. We are facing a theft epidemic in this country, largely concentrated in our cities, where youths, often in gangs, shoplift and snatch phones.
Our capital city is now the phone theft capital of Europe, where a phone is snatched every seven and a half minutes. The United Kingdom accounts for almost 40% of all phone thefts on the continent. I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property. The same is true for shoplifting. CCTV footage consistently shows offenders using face coverings to evade detection, then using bikes and scooters to flee the scene. The cost to retailers of this shoplifting inevitably is passed on to consumers, and last year amounted to £2 billion.
The police must have the power to stop these criminals, and this amendment provides the grounds for it. It is often impossible to see where a thief has a stolen item on their possession, so we must look for other pointers as to who is committing these crimes. Allowing the police to intervene when they are in public on a bike or scooter is the next necessary step. It would dramatically increase the chances of victims being returned their stolen property and allow the police to begin to tackle the epidemic that we find ourselves in.
I once again thank my noble friend for her amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for tabling Amendment 416. I recognise the concerns that she set out, and those set out very clearly by the many noble Lords who contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, about the use of bicycles and scooters in facilitating crime and anti-social behaviour.
The Government have committed to the winter of action initiative, which is running from 1 December 2025 to the end of January. This initiative is intended to focus on making town centres across England and Wales safer by building on the safer streets summer initiative and continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, while addressing retail crime and night-time economy offences, particularly during the darker evenings that we have in winter, when there are higher risks to public safety.
I say directly to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that we are setting a framework. We always say, and I think all sides of the Committee agree, that it is for good reasons of operational independence that the police decide their priorities and how they deploy their resources, which will always be scarce however much we want to give them—there will never be enough. These initiatives give us confidence that the police are treating these sorts of offences as a priority and understand the concerns not only of this Committee but across wider society about the sorts of offences that the noble Viscount and other noble Lords set out.
The police do have powers to act here, and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about police powers to stop any vehicles, which is a good point. However, the powers to which I am going to refer are different, and this goes to the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas where they are being used for the purposes of concealing their identity and gives police the power to seize the face covering. Areas can be designated when an officer of the rank of at least inspector reasonably believes that crime is likely to take place there. We encourage police forces to make full use of these powers in areas they know to be crime hotspots. This includes any road users or cyclists, including those working for food delivery companies, as my noble friend Lord Shamash set out, when the police have due course, and irrespective of the type of vehicle being used, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, went to some lengths to describe.
In addition, local authorities have powers to make public spaces protection orders, which can prohibit specified acts in designated areas. I understand that a number of local authorities already have in place PSPOs that ban the wearing of face coverings in the area covered by the order, to deal with exactly this kind of anti-social behaviour by Balaclava-wearing cyclists.
This is probably as good a point as any to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned live facial recognition. I am not sure that either was in their place for the debate we had in Committee last Thursday, but I reiterate that there is a live consultation on live facial recognition, so I once again encourage noble Lords, if interested, to contribute to that and set out their views on live facial recognition.
There are of course legitimate reasons why cyclists may wear a face covering, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, including health reasons or just to keep out the cold. That is often, but not always, seasonal. Notwithstanding the Stakhanovite efforts made, at least in London by the mayor, to tackle air quality through ULEZ and other measures, it is sometimes about protecting cyclists from inhaling particulates and the like. It would be disproportionate to introduce a blanket prohibition of the kind envisaged by Amendment 416 or, for that matter, to extend the Section 60AA powers, to which I have already referred, to situations where there are no grounds to reasonably believe that criminal activity may take place in a particular location. Given these considerations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
We are saying here that the requirement to remove this would be accompanied by some sort of reasonable suspicion that that person had been committing a crime, so it is not just a person who has a cough or a cold.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I completely agree. I was talking more about the rationale for wearing face coverings. Without too much speculation, one could contend that some seasonal conditions might pertain to somebody wearing a full face covering or a balaclava. More importantly than anything else, this being accompanied by anti-social or suspicious behaviour would give police the rationale to use the powers I have already set out. I am not in any sense trying to make light of or excuse the situations we are talking about. I am just observing that there are reasons why people would wear a partial face covering, such as a mask, when cycling. It was just an observation; I agree with the point the noble Lord made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the concern across the Committee—it is a serious problem—and for trying out his winter of action. However, I am disappointed by his response. The existing 1994 Act powers and the local authority arrangements he mentioned are too narrow and specific.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that I am not against cyclists or masks. I am trying to make sure that, where they are being used by criminals to hide from the police, it is easier to take action. It is quite a light amendment. It is stop, not search, which we were discussing earlier.
I am grateful for the support I have had from my own Front Bench: from my very experienced noble friend Lord Davies of Gower; from my noble friend Lord Jackson, whose evidence that face coverings in particular are an issue I liked; from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke about the scale of the problem, of which there are lots more examples; and from my noble friend Lord Goschen, who spoke about his concerns around lack of enforcement, which I know the Government are trying to address but which is a serious priority. I appreciated the moral support, if I might put it like that, of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. I will take up his offer to talk to him further about the exact character of this amendment before we get to Report—something may need to be added, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. It sounds as if there is a definite lacuna in relation to e-scooters, presumably because they are not usually regarded as vehicles in all legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review: compliance and enforcement mechanisms in relation to police powers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a proposal for approval by the House of Commons on the establishment of an independent commission to investigate the enforcement powers of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in relation to the police.(2) The proposal for an independent commission must include terms of reference, which must include, but may not be limited to—(a) a review of the powers available to other independent regulatory and investigative bodies, such as Ofqual, the Care Quality Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority, and Ofsted, for the purposes of comparison,(b) the lessons learned from other regulatory bodies with stronger enforcement powers, and(c) an examination of whether a statutory framework of coordination between HMICFRS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and Police and Crime Commissioners, could enhance the enforcement powers available to all three sets of bodies and the accountability of policing in England and Wales.(3) The proposal for an independent commission must set out a timetable for its work including that—(a) the commission should conclude its deliberations within nine months of its establishment, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament and ensure that time is made available, within a fortnight of the report being laid, in both Houses for a substantive debate on the report’s conclusions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to publish a proposal for an independent commission for approval by the House of Commons to review the enforcement powers of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), including consideration of a statutory framework to enhance the collective enforcement powers of bodies supervising Police Forces in England and Wales.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an unusual amendment for me because it is very exploratory. At the end, I am going to ask the Minister three questions, which I would really like an answer to, perhaps in writing if it is not possible today. This amendment is supported by StopWatch, an organisation that seeks accountable and fair policing. This is a crucial element of creating fair policing. When serious problems are found, how confident are we that the system can put them right? The system as it stands is a little jumbled. I suggest that it could do with some streamlining.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services does really important work in shining a light on what is going wrong, but inspection takes us only so far. My amendment asks whether the follow-through is strong enough and whether lessons from other regulated sectors could help turn findings into lasting improvements. In healthcare, education and financial services, regulators are able to require change. Those systems exist because inspection without action does not protect the public. The amendment invites us to consider whether policing oversight could benefit from similar clarity and grip. The amendment also raises the issue of co-ordination. Are HMICFRS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and police and crime commissioners working together as effectively as they can when forces fail to improve? Would clearer statutory alignment help ensure that warnings are acted on and not simply repeated?
Where concerns about proportionality and legitimacy keep resurfacing, it is right to ask whether the oversight framework is strong enough to drive change. As this Bill and others give more and more power to the police, this is the perfect time to ask. I would welcome the Minister’s response on three points. First, how do the Government judge whether inspection findings are actually leading to improvement on the ground? Secondly, have the Government considered whether closer co-operation between oversight bodies could strengthen accountability? Thirdly, are there lessons from other regulatory systems that the Government believe policing can learn from? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to continuing this discussion as the Bill progresses.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. Noble Lords will recall my work on a particular police force and abnormal loads. I am confused that it was the chief inspector who informed the Home Secretary that there was a big problem. I am grateful to her for dealing with it, but I thought that the IOPC was responsible for dealing with misconduct and that the chief inspector was looking more at efficiency and the proper use of resources. It would be extremely useful to the Committee if the Minister could explain where the dividing line is between the activities of the IOPC, which I see as being concerned with conduct and discipline, and of the chief inspector, who is concerned more about efficiency.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the amendment rightly exposes a serious weakness in our current system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, points out, HMICFRS can diagnose deep-seated problems within police forces but it does not have the power to make sure these problems are fixed. There are simply too few national levers to deal with police underperformance. Labour’s manifesto included a clear commitment to give HMICFRS new powers to intervene in failing forces, and Ministers have signalled that they want to legislate to do this. We welcome that, but the Bill contains no such clause. I appreciate that a White Paper might be imminent. Even so, I urge the Government not to miss this golden opportunity to legislate now for clear, time-bound duties and proper escalation mechanisms, so that police forces are required to act on inspectorate findings.
Amendment 416A seeks to take the Government further by building this question into a wider statutory review of policing oversight. We support that intention, but we part company with the noble Baroness on the mechanism she proposes. Setting up yet another independent commission, with the terms of reference to be devised by the Secretary of State, approved by the Commons and then followed by nine months of deliberation, risks delaying change for at least another year. The evidence base is already substantial. What is missing is not diagnosis but the authority to enforce it. The noble Baroness is quite right that enforcement is a wider problem, one that extends beyond HMICFRS to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, where lessons are not always learned, to put it mildly. I agree with the spirit of co-ordination, but we must remember that the IOPC’s role is distinct—to oversee complaints and investigate the most serious misconduct. It is not, and should not become, a general performance regulator for police forces. That role properly lies with HMICFRS and, ultimately, with Ministers.
From these Benches, our preference is clear: do not commission another review and, instead, move directly and decisively to give the inspectorate the power it so clearly needs. For too long, we have had excellent reports, full of well-reasoned recommendations, almost all accepted by the police and the Government, but nothing happens. That inaction is rarely followed up. Measures that ensure that we no longer see the same failures repeated again and again would be very welcome.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing forward Amendment 416A. While I recognise the intention to ensure that policing is subject to effective scrutiny and that regulatory bodies have the tools they need to drive improvement, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, nor do I think it would represent a proportionate or effective use of time and resources. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services already plays a well-established role in ensuring accountability. It has extensive powers to inspect, report and make recommendations, and these reports are published and robust. They are laid before Parliament and used by the Home Office and policing bodies to drive reform. Where forces fall short, the existing framework already enables escalation, follow-up inspections and external pressure.
I was also worried that this amendment risks duplicating work already being carried out within existing structures. The policing oversight landscape includes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, police and crime commissioners and parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees. Co-ordination between these bodies is important, and I suggest it would be more constructive to ensure the better use of these mechanisms rather than create a new independent commission.
It is also worth noting the practical burden imposed by this amendment. It would require the Government to establish a commission, set detailed terms of reference, run a comparative review across multiple regulators, and timetable parliamentary debates in both Houses within a very tight timeframe. That is a significant undertaking that may not be justified, given the absence of clear evidence that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services lacks the necessary authority to fulfil its core function. For those reasons, while I very much respect the motivation behind the amendment, I do not believe it necessary or proportionate and therefore cannot support it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendment 416A. It gives me an opportunity, if nothing else, to pay tribute to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for the work it does; she was right to point out its professionalism. Moreover, I want to pay tribute to the current chief inspector, Sir Andy Cooke, who has announced his intention to retire in March. He has served as chief inspector with distinction, has 40 years of service to policing and was Chief Constable of Merseyside. I hope that your Lordships’ House will join me in thanking Sir Andy for his dedicated service.
The Police Act 1996 requires His Majesty’s inspectorate to publish an inspection programme and an inspection framework which, following consultation, are laid before Parliament. The latest versions of these were put before the House on 4 March 2025. As part of its work, HMICFRS inspects every police force as part of its Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy programme, and gives the force a grading on a series of indicators. All these findings are published and are available to chief constables, local policing bodies, the PCC, the public and, importantly, Ministers. HMICFRS also publishes a number of thematic reports covering every aspect of policing, and these form a useful tool for the policing sector to drive performance.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that recommendations made by HMICFRS do not just sit on the shelf, are taken seriously and are implemented, and that those affected make sure that the public are receiving the best possible service as a whole. It is important that the three points she mentioned are examined: inspection findings, closer co-operation, and lessons learned. She quoted to the Committee the manifesto, in which we did say we would give HMICFRS new powers to intervene with failing forces. She is right to point to the fact that there is a police White Paper, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, which is expected to be published shortly. By shortly—I know this is always a topic of interest to the Committee— I do mean shortly in this case. I encourage your Lordships to study that document carefully when it is published, because it contains a wide-ranging set of proposals for improving policing in England and Wales. I hope it will go some way toward shining a light, at least, on the three questions the noble Baroness has put to the Committee today.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Will the White Paper deal with action rather than consultation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The White Paper will set out a number of proposals that the Government intend to bring forward in policy, legislation or executive action. There are a number of areas around police efficiency—what is done centrally and what is done locally, how it is done centrally and how it is done locally—that will form part of the wider debate on the police White Paper. The noble and learned Baroness will not have long to wait for the police White Paper. When it does come, undoubtedly there will be a Statement in the House of Commons and, as ever, I will have to repeat the Statement here in this House. There will be an opportunity to look at that direction of travel and how, importantly, we are going to implement the measures that we are putting in the White Paper, which, again, will be produced very shortly. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Baroness any more comfort than that.
I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that the proposal in the amendment would kick this matter of efficiency, co-ordination, performance and implementation further down the line than is already planned with our police White Paper proposals very shortly. So I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on the basis of those comments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I take to heart the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Of course I want fast action. I want it all and I want it now—that is my motto for life. It seems that this Committee is always hearing, “Oh, it’s all right, the Government’s dealing with this but you can have it shortly”. It does not matter whether it is talking about protest law or this particular point about accountability and action; there is always a White Paper coming along and we are going to have to wait for that, and why are we doing this Bill now if we do not have all the information we need? Anyway, I do note the Minister’s good intentions, I very much hope to see them put into action, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Abolition of non-crime hate incidents(1) Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (code of practice relating to non-crime hate incidents and related procedural requirements) are repealed.(2) Non-crime hate incidents shall not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom.(3) No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a non-crime hate incident.(4) Subsection (3) does not mean a police authority or police officer cannot record information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motives in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.(5) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, any police authority which has retained any record of a non-crime hate incident, save in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4), must delete such record.(6) For the purposes of this section—“non-crime hate incident” means any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity;“police authority” means a person specified in sub-section 158(1);“police officer” means any person acting under the authority a police authority.”
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, which has been campaigning against non-crime hate incidents for at least five years.
I thought it might be helpful to begin with a definition of what an NCHI is. The amendment itself says that it is
“any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity”.
How many of these incidents have been recorded by the police since the concept of NCHIs was introduced by the College of Policing in 2014? The Telegraph submitted an FoI request to all 43 police forces in England and Wales in early 2020, and 34 of the 43 —about three-quarters of the police forces in England and Wales—responded and disclosed that 119,934 NCHIs had been recorded in England and Wales in the five years from 2014 to 2019. By my calculation, that is an average of 65 a day—and remember, that that is just in England and Wales, and just three-quarters of the real total. There is no reason to think that the number being recorded every day by police forces in England and Wales has declined from that average of 65 since then, in the subsequent six years.
How long does it take the police? How many police hours are spent recording NCHIs? Policy Exchange published a report last November in which it concluded that the police spend 60,000 hours a year—again, that is just the police in England and Wales—investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents. If you factor in that they have been around since 2014, that means the police have spent at least 660,000 hours investigating and recording non-crimes since 2014.
What sort of incidents are we talking about? “Non-crime hate incident” sounds quite serious. I will give just a handful of examples. A man had an NCHI recorded against him after a neighbour complained that his whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” was racist. A woman had an NCHI recorded against her name because she posted on X that she thought her cat was a Methodist. A nine year-old girl had an NCHI recorded against her because she called another girl in the school playground a “retard”. Two secondary school pupils had NCHIs recorded against them for saying about another girl, again in the school playground, that she smelled like fish. This is the kind of thing that the police have been spending 660,000 hours investigating and recording since 2014.
Incidentally, I know of at least one Member of this House who has had an NCHI recorded against her, and a Conservative Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, had an NCHI recorded against her because of a complaint made about the contents of her speech at a Conservative Party conference that she was addressed in her capacity as Home Secretary.
So it seems that it is not terribly difficult to make the argument that the police have been wasting a huge amount of time investigating and recording relatively trivial incidents. Again, I stress that the definition says that if it is merely “perceived”, not just by the “victim” but by any person, as being motivated by hostility or prejudice towards the “victim’s” protected characteristics, it can be recorded as an NCHI. Sometimes, when NCHIs are recorded, the person against whom the NCHI is recorded is not informed—so you might well have an NCHI recorded against you without knowing it.
All this sounds quite trivial, but having an NCHI recorded against your name can be quite serious, because chief constables, at their discretion, can disclose the fact that an NCHI has been recorded against a person when they apply for a job that requires them to do an enhanced DBS check. So, you can end up not getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or a voluntary position with a charity such as the Samaritans, because you have an NCHI recorded against your name.
I will just point out one more, I think unintended, consequence of the NCHI regime, which is that records are deleted after six years. So if you have an NCHI recorded against you at the age of 17, it remains on what is in effect your criminal record until you are 23, whereas quite serious criminal offences, if you are convicted, are spent when you reach the age of majority. The fact that you have committed a non-crime can hang about your neck like a bad smell long after you have reached the age of majority, even if it was recorded against you when you were a child. So, in some senses, not committing a crime and having that recorded against you can have more serious consequences than committing quite a serious crime and being convicted of it.
I believe that I am pushing at an open door. A report on NCHIs has been commissioned by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They have published a provisional version of the report, in which they declare the NCHI regime unfit for purpose. I do not think that they have submitted the final report to the Home Secretary yet, but I know that, when they do, the Home Secretary is likely to take up the recommendations, and I think we will see the end of the NCHI regime.
I have four issues on which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance. The first is that, as I understand it, the new regime will be that incidents are no longer recorded as non-crime hate incidents; some cases will be recorded as anti-social behaviour incidents, but they will not be logged on the police national database. I ask for the Minister’s assurance that anti-social behaviour incidents that would have been recorded as NCHIs under the old regime will not, unlike NCHIs, be recorded on the police national database.
I also ask for the Minister’s assurance that, once the new regime is in place, previous NCHIs recorded under the old regime will be deleted and will not hang around for six years as they do currently, given that there is acceptance that the regime is not fit for purpose. If the regime is not fit for purpose, I hope the Minister can assure us that existing NCHIs—it is not inconceivable that they number in the hundreds of thousands—will be deleted. Finally, I seek reassurance that these anti-social behaviour incidents will not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.
I hope that the review by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be submitted and digested in time for the new regime to be put in place on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.
Non-crime hate recording had an honourable start, following on from the Macpherson inquiry. There were two problems at the time. The first was that recordable crime was lower than it should have been because it was not being recorded accurately, due to misrecording and it sometimes not being recorded at all. This was linked to police performance being measured by the amount of crime in society. Therefore, the police service was incentivised to record less rather than more crime, thereby, ironically, undermining its own bid for more resourcing.
The murder of Stephen Lawrence showed us that, sometimes, before a crime is committed, there are signals that someone may be a racist, for example, and that, if we take the right action, we could prevent those crimes occurring and someone getting hurt or any other crime being committed. That system worked well at the start, because it allowed the police to collect intelligence and spot patterns—for example, by geography, suspect or victims. That relied on the basic repeat offender victim location theory, which shows that 10% of repeat offenders can account for over half of some crimes.
The problem is that the same system is now being used to police the social harms caused by causing offence. Causing offence is not a crime. The internet amplifies the problem—first, because it has a permanent record of the offensive but not criminal behaviour, and, secondly, because it allows millions of people, sometimes worldwide, to see the communication. For everybody involved, it is then very hard to ignore. This has led to some bizarre police interventions—the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already mentioned some—on issues that are not crimes or even non-crime hate. The public have juxtaposed these with significant complaints—such as shoplifting, car theft and other serious crimes—that, meanwhile, the police say they are too busy to deal with, even when a suspect is available to arrest. The two issues do not sit well together.
There is a need to record intelligence about incidents that may later become significant if crimes are committed. This can be on the police command and control log, where the incident can be given an anti-social behaviour coding, or on the criminal intelligence system. The problem arises if the name of a person who is said to have caused offence is recorded. In my view, if the police say that they will record what is being alleged because someone has called the control room and they need to log all calls—the police later denying that a call had come in would not be sensible—then it is necessary to record those incidents in the control room. However, if, on the face of what a person tells the police, they see no crime or incident, they will not investigate and will not record the name of the person the caller says has offended them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I also very much support this amendment as, I hope, a nudge towards an opening door that the Government are already looking at. Following on from the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, it seems that, quite apart from the recipients of these NCHIs, there are two further issues: the waste of time and the waste of money. The police are always short of money and of time. That is obvious and has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hogan-Howe. If this was removed, they could get on and do their job. They would save a great deal of money and something even more important, because they would be dealing with the crimes that people really need them to deal with.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is already proving to be a crucial debate in the passage of this Bill. I support Amendment 416E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Strasburger is unable to be with us to support the amendment, which he has signed, but I hope that I reflect his views in speaking today.
Non-crime hate incidents, although born from the well-intentioned Macpherson report in 1993—which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, called “an honourable start”—have morphed into a mechanism that frequently harasses and silences legitimate debate. In doing so, they consume prodigious quantities of police time, as we have heard—time that is desperately needed to investigate the crimes that we have discussed throughout Committee. Non-crime hate incidents, which started from benign motivations in 1993, have morphed into an ugly and frequently used technique for harassing and silencing somebody whose views the complainant does not like. In the process, prodigious quantities of police time are being wasted on non-criminal matters, meaning that real crimes that would otherwise be investigated are being ignored.
The seeds of what has gone wrong were sown by the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The inquiry concluded that a racist incident should be defined as being
“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
In essence, that means that anyone—whether involved in an incident or not, whether a reasonable person or otherwise—would be able to determine that an incident, no matter how harmless, was racist in nature. The inquiry went on to recommend that
“the term ‘racist incident’ must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment”.
It is remarkable that the inquiry concluded that incidents which are not criminal offences as defined by Parliament should be investigated by the police with equal vigour as those which are criminal offences. That raises fundamental questions about the purpose of the police and what their priorities should be, particularly in a world of potentially limitless demand and highly constrained resource.
Nevertheless, Macpherson’s recommendations relating to racist incidents and their recording were rapidly accepted and implemented by the police and government. Following a 2006 review by Sir Adrian Fulford, a shared definition of hate crimes and non-crime hate incidents was adopted across the criminal justice system, including by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. This expanded the recording of NCHIs beyond purely racist incidents to cover all those characteristics that are covered by hate crime legislation in England and Wales—race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.
Key to the expansion of alleged NCHIs was the creation, in 2014, of the College of Policing’s Hate Crime Operational Guidance for police forces. Perhaps recognising that the guidance was likely to cause grave concerns to many, the College of Policing made a pre-emptive defence of their policy, saying:
“The recording of, and response to, non-crime hate incidents does not have universal support in society. Some people use this as evidence to accuse the police of becoming ‘the thought police’, trying to control what citizens think or believe, rather than what they do”.
The guidance goes on to say, in relation to hate incidents:
“Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.
The use of “must” in the guidance leaves no latitude for police discretion or the balancing of rights exercise, which would be necessary in considering the subject’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
With the advent of social media, the number of NCHIs being recorded has rocketed. Policy Exchange reported in 2024 that over 13,000 are being logged annually in England and Wales, consuming 60,000 police hours a year. Some keyboard warriors with an axe to grind have made a full-time occupation out of submitting prolific quantities of NCHI complaints with little or no justification. These include a disgraced former policeman who prodigiously exploits the system to frequently harass his political opponents. Some incidents have hit the press, such as when Graham Linehan, the co-creator of “Father Ted”, was arrested on the tarmac at Heathrow over an NCHI.
However, many victims of spurious NCHIs are not even aware that a complaint has been logged against their name. One campaigner found out only when the complainant launched a judicial review of the police’s refusal to take the matter further. As we have heard, the impact of having an unproven NCHI secretly logged against your name can be severe and mean that you are refused a visa to visit certain countries, including America, or that you fail an enhanced DBS check for a job in areas such as education or health.
Freedom of information requests to 43 police forces found zero examples of NCHIs preventing crime. The Metropolitan Police announced last October that it has stopped investigating NCHIs entirely. Last month, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing reported to the Government that NCHIs are “not fit for purpose”.
NCHIs must go. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, stated during our debates on the seventh day in Committee that the College of Policing is reviewing this guidance and that we would see this review before Report. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that review will address the chilling effect on free speech identified in the Miller judgment and whether he accepts that the police must prioritise actual criminality over the recording of NCHIs.
I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state. When will the Government act to abolish NCHIs? If the Minister cannot answer that question, we will have to return to this matter on Report.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests that I am chair of the College of Policing.
As I said at Second Reading, we need to remember that there were benign reasons for the introduction of this regime over three decades ago; what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in this regard was helpful. The purpose was to ensure that the police would pursue intelligence that could build a pattern of behaviour that would result in harm to an individual. That was the case not just in relation to the dreadful murder of Stephen Lawrence but subsequently in the case of Fiona Pilkington, where a repeated pattern of anti-social behaviour had been ignored. It was not criminal behaviour—it fell below that threshold—but it nevertheless resulted in a tragic loss of life.
Nevertheless, as has been noted, there has been considerable change over that three decades, with the advent of social media, smartphones and a much more contested policy space in many of the areas relating to hate crimes or alleged hate crimes. There is the risk of a number of consequences. Those have been drawn attention to by noble Lords, but they include the chilling effect on free speech, the tying up of resources unnecessarily —I will come to that—and, I suggest, at least as serious, damage to the reputation of the police, if it is perceived that they are prioritising the wrong things and getting themselves involved in matters that they should not be.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to rise to support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton’s excellent Amendment 416E, which seeks to abolish the non-crime hate incident regime, which is long overdue. The principle at stake is quite simple and fundamental. The state must not brand people as potential wrongdoers when no criminal offence has been committed. So I congratulate my noble friend on moving the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, whose masterful speech made an absolutely compelling case for the immediate abolition of this obnoxious regime.
I am delighted to hear the wise words of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, in his role as chair of the College of Policing. If it looks like, as the noble Lord said, the regime is not fit for purpose, and if that report gets to the Home Office before Report, we want amendments on Report to abolish it, rather than putting it out to consultation for another three months to decide whether to do it in some future criminal justice Bill. If it is not fit for purpose now, it should not be fit for purpose a moment longer than necessary.
For far too long, under all Governments, this gross abuse of our fundamental freedoms has been tolerated. I cannot count the number of times I have heard police and Ministers justify it on the basis that it is an essential intelligence-gathering tool which would be helpful in heading off future crimes. I strongly believe in intelligence-led policing and recording secretly any information on potential criminal activity. But it is not intelligence if you record it on a database and give it to prospective employers with, in the immortal words of Monty Python, a “nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more” sort of thing.
Recent reporting makes this danger painfully clear. As my noble friend said, we now have the documented cases of a nine year-old boy logged for calling another pupil a retard; two schoolgirls accused of saying someone else smelled like fish; and the extraordinary case of Harry Miller, a former police officer, who was visited at work by Humberside Police because he tweeted this joke:
“I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish”—
it is not a very funny joke, but nevertheless—which the force recorded as a non-crime hate incident until the High Court ruled its actions a “disproportionate interference” with his freedom of expression, and rightly so.
The case of Allison Pearson was mentioned by my noble friend: the national newspaper columnist had police officers knock on her door on Remembrance Sunday to accuse her of “stirring up racial hatred” over a tweet she had already deleted. It was never told what she was being investigated for, because no offence had been committed. A person who has committed no crime can be questioned, placed on a police record and left with a stain that follows them into job applications, community life and future interactions with the state.
This is not a harmless administrative note. A police record, even where no offence has been committed, can surface in enhanced checks, damage careers and stigmatise people in their communities. It creates a two-tier system of reputational punishment: one for those convicted of crimes and another, less visible but no less damaging, for those who have merely expressed opinions or made mistakes. That is a grave injustice. The state must not be in the business of branding citizens as potential wrongdoers when no criminality has been established. Recording non-criminal speech as a hate incident treats lawful expression as if it were a criminal matter.
This practice chills debate, deters whistleblowers and journalists, and discourages civic participation. It stops harmless jokes and humour. If this system had existed 30 years ago in the British Army, hundreds of thousands of sergeant-majors would have had millions of records against them, because the wonderful terms of abuse and insults they had for us when we got our marching wrong and made mistakes were absolutely astronomical. I do not think we suffered any harm because of those jokes and humour at our expense.
Amendment 416E restores the proper boundary between policing and free expression. It does not prevent the police investigating genuine criminal offences or using intelligence proportionately where there is a real threat to safety. What it does is prevent the indefinite administrative stigmatisation of people who have committed no crime. It protects employment prospects, reputations and the right to speak without fear of being treated as a suspect.
To me, the key subsection is not on stopping them doing it in future but on purging current records, as proposed new subsection (5) says:
“Within three months of the coming into force of this section, any police authority which has retained any record of a non-crime hate incident, save in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4), must delete such record”.
I agree entirely, but I warn noble Lords that the police, in many cases, will try not to do it. They will find every excuse to hang on to that database and not delete it immediately.
I have tremendous respect for the police and the brave work they do on our behalf, and I pay tribute to the 4,000 officers killed in the last 200 years, since the first salaried officers went on duty. All the police I have ever met have wanted to save lives, crack down on crime and keep the King’s peace—but if you gave them a completely free hand, they would want to collect from every person over the age of five their fingerprints, DNA and biometric data and use them to stop crime. They would succeed—it would make a tremendous difference—but I think that is not the sort of society we want to allow. Therefore, we should not permit the retention of data on individuals who have not committed any crime.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, said about recording. When I heard the Metropolitan Police commissioner say a few weeks ago that it was not going to investigate non-crime hate incidents and was just going to record them, I thought, “Hang on”. That means that if someone accuses someone else of being racist, the police will not investigate to see whether it is right or wrong but will still record it as a crime. If keeping it recorded means in the call centre, on the record, that is okay, but it should not be recorded on any other database if it is not actually a crime.
I conclude by saying that this reform is practical. As my noble friend said, police resources are finite. Recording and managing non-crime entries diverts police officers from investigating real criminality and protecting victims. If the state wants to monitor tensions, it can do so through proportionate, anonymised intelligence and community safety work, not by placing individuals on quasi-criminal registers for conduct that is lawful. I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I support what my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs said about the College of Policing saying it is not fit for purpose. I therefore look forward to a commitment from the Minister that we will have an amendment on Report that implements what my noble friend Lord Young has said in Amendment 416E.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a freelance journalist and, therefore, somebody who has a very great care for freedom of speech. What a pleasure it is to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which so brilliantly summarised all the reasons there are to support Amendment 416E in the name of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the excellent amendment of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union.
I was brought up in Plumstead in south-east London, as was Stephen Lawrence. I can absolutely understand the horror and the imperative for action that arose from the disgraceful racist murder of that young man in 1993: there was a clamour to tackle the culture that gave rise to five racist thugs taking that young man’s life. That is a very important context, but I am afraid that things have developed in a way that we did not foresee way back in 1993.
In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of the remarks of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, in 2024:
“I had to look up what on earth the term”—
non-crime hate incidents—
“meant—I was puzzled by it”.
Coming from the DPP, that reveals a lot about what a strange anomaly NCHIs have been.
The idea that there is a kind of police record that can result in ordinary people who have committed no crime being visited by police at their home or workplace because an investigation has been launched into whether their views or attitudes may one day lead to criminal activity should be seen as entirely incongruent with British justice and freedom of expression. It brings to mind the film “Minority Report” and the fictional idea of pre-crime. But this is not fiction: it is the real world. The idea that, in the real world, a person could lose their job because an NCHI shows up on an enhanced DBS check ought to be anathema to us.
Mention was made earlier of Allison Pearson. My noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs is absolutely right: it was the Communications Act or another piece of legislation that was involved when Essex Police visited her on Remembrance Sunday 2024. She has nevertheless raised the public profile of the impact of NCHIs on people and, for that, we should thank her, as we should Harry Miller and others.
The Times reported that year that 13,200 NCHIs were recorded by 45 police forces in the 12 months to June 2024. That includes allegations against doctors, vicars, social workers and even primary school children. As we have heard, Policy Exchange calculated that this had amounted to at least 60,000 hours of officer time. It surely was never a defensible use of police time, especially while so many serious crimes such as burglaries and sexual offences remain unsolved and uninvestigated. There are too many stories to tell, but one elderly woman was shocked to find herself the subject of an NCHI after taking a photograph of a sticker which read: “Keep males out of women-only spaces”. She did not even put the sticker up; she just took a photo of it. The 73 year-old received a visit from police officers after she was caught on CCTV taking the photo of the sticker, which someone had put up on an LGBT Pride poster. She said she agreed with its sentiments and wanted to show it to her partner. Apparently, the police thought this made her a likely future criminal.
My noble friend Lord Herbert said that these cases have been bad for public confidence in the service, and he is right. It is therefore welcome that over the last year or so there has been a growing realisation and consensus in the Government that there is a need to address the problem. In particular, I welcome the recent press reports that the college and the NPCC are set to recommend scrapping non-crime hate incidents as a result of the review.
My noble friend Lord Herbert has promised that there will be a sea change. We must wait and see the final detail on how the changes are delivered in practice. I say this partly because what we are attempting to do in turning policing away from an excessive focus on what we might call DEI issues towards the criminal matters that the public care about goes against the grain of the last two decades of police culture. We have seen before how difficult this is to uproot. The previous Government published new statutory guidance on NCHIs in 2023. Training should have been given to call handlers on the raised thresholds and common-sense tests, and we should have seen a reduction in the number of non-crime hate incidents recorded, but, sadly, the report published the following year by His Majesty’s inspectorate, An Inspection into Activism and Impartiality in Policing, concluded that there was
“inconsistency in the way forces have responded to the new guidance”
and that
“We often found that call takers hadn’t received training about NCHIs, and had limited, if any, knowledge”
of the statutory guidance.
First, can the Minister say how we will ensure that police training on the new regime is not undercut by an obsession with DEI issues and the politicisation of policing which has clouded police judgments too often in recent years? Secondly, we need to see a clearer commitment from the Government on how they plan to respond to the NPCC report and what the timelines will be. I know there are ongoing reviews into police discretion and hate crime, and I particularly welcome the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, of hate crime legislation. I hope that he will feel emboldened to address one of the more fundamental issues; namely, the injustice resulting from the creation of a hierarchy of victims by legislating for certain protected characteristics rather than treating all victims equally.
However, these ongoing reviews should not be an excuse for inaction. Will the Minister make the commitment that, should the NCHI review require primary legislation to implement its recommendations, this will be done via amendments on Report—a point made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—preferably adopting my noble friend’s carefully crafted amendment?
While I understand the previous Government’s decision to introduce statutory guidance via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 as a first step towards introducing some common sense in this area, it had the unfortunate consequence of providing a statutory basis for recording NCHIs. If this is to be corrected, the law will need to change.
Again, the devil will be in the detail. The NPCC’s final report has not yet been published, but it did publish a progress report last October. There were a number of points where I would want to see improvements in the final report before I could feel confident that the new system will avoid the pitfalls of the current regime. One of those relates to the NPCC’s recommendation that the Home Office introduce a new national standard of incident recording. As I alluded to earlier, the current threshold, which dates back to 2011, is too low and does not adequately cater for contemporary policing demands.
We ought to think carefully, too, about any new definition. The current draft proposition put forward by the NPCC defines an incident as
“a single distinct event or occurrence which may be relevant to policing for preventing or solving crime, safeguarding individuals or communities or fulfilling other statutory policing purposes”.
This helpfully makes it clear that there needs to be a clear policing purpose for this data to be recorded. I am concerned about the words “may be relevant”. At the very least, would it not be better for it to say, “likely to be relevant”? My concern is that an activist police officer would record practically anything on the basis of “may”. We all know hoarders—the kind of people who keep everything because they tell themselves it may be useful in the future.
Finally, we need greater clarity on enhanced DBS checks. The progress report recommends that the Home Office consider whether there needs to be further guidance, but key questions are ignored. Will the police delete NCHIs that they have already recorded, and will the new anti-social behaviour incidents be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks? I am pleased to support this very good and sensible amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Hogan-Howe, for leading on this. It is telling that there is cross-party support for this amendment. The Government should take note of such rich and excellent speeches from across the House. There is widespread concern for all sorts of reasons, and action should be taken.
I feel a bit cynical because I have celebrated the demise of non-crime hate incidents on a number of occasions in the past. When the Fair Cop founder Harry Miller won his High Court challenge in 2020, the judge declared that non-crime hate incidents had a chilling effect and unlawfully infringed on Harry’s freedom of speech. I remember that a lot of us thought that would be the end of that. I then listened to a number of Home Secretaries declaring that there was a problem with non-crime hate incidents, and I thought, “Oh, good, something will be done”, because politicians like to do something. But I am most reassured, genuinely, by the present Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who seems to be determined to get to the bottom of this and to sort it out. Her emphasis that the police should focus on streets and not tweets is quite a good summation of where we are. However, despite that universal acknowledgement that non-crime hate incidents are not fit for purpose in many ways, I worry that, as with the Greek mythological Hydra, all the various attempts at cutting off the monstrous NCHI serpent’s head will result in another couple of heads growing instead. It is important that we do not just console ourselves with getting rid of the name while allowing the sentiment and the politics of it to remain.
As somebody who has spoken many times on this issue in this House, often greeted by some eye-rolling but also offered endless assurances that it was all being sorted—not by this Government but by a previous Government—I now believe that assurances are not enough, and we need to make this issue watertight. We need primary legislation as a guarantee that there will be no more non-crime hate incidents and a full deletion of the historic records held by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, made the point that when there have been changes in the criminal law, records have not been deleted, but these are not crimes, so they should be deleted. Even if they are not used, the idea that the state has a file on hundreds of thousands of people with the words “bigot” or “hate criminals” across them, even if they are hate non-criminal, is not right and they should be deleted.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, for his contribution because he set out the balance between non-crime hate incidents and non-crime incidents and the difference between the two. One of our concerns on these Benches is that—I am going to use the phrase he used, for which I apologise, but I had already written it down—in looking at this amendment, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is really important, and I will explain why in some detail later.
I remind the Committee that, in considering our two amendments about hate crime last week, I referred to the recommendation Combating Hate Crime by the Council of Europe, which says that
“hate can be manifested with different degrees of severity, ranging from everyday stigmatisation and discrimination, microaggressions and verbal abuse, to violence, terrorism, war crimes and genocide”,
which is an enormous spectrum. The reason why non-crime incidents, whether hate-related or not, need to be recorded is that often, the perpetrators go on to escalate their behaviour.
I have referred before in this House to being stalked by a political opponent for three years. Before we could get the police to take it seriously, we had recorded some 75 incidents, probably half of which were crimes but half were not. As things escalated, it went from minor crimes to the perpetrator using a very large knife on tyres. The police psychologist said, “If we don’t get him now, it will be people next”. It is that entire spectrum of behaviour, with some incidents ending up being part of a crime, that means we cannot just throw out all non-crime incidents.
I am afraid that the same is also true for non-crime hate incidents. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the appalling case of the antisemitic attacks, because those would go as well if this amendment were accepted, since there would be no capacity for the police to start monitoring and recording such things until they tipped the balance into a crime, even though the damage was done in those earlier incidents, repeatedly to the same group of people. I think of friends of mine who go to synagogue in one town, and of young Muslim friends in my home town of Watford who are shouted at on their way to worship every single week by the same small group of people. Probably neither of those would even get to the first bar of being recorded as a non-crime hate incident; but, if their behaviour follows the typical course and escalates, and the police have not recorded anything, they have nothing to go back over. So I beg the movers of this amendment to—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
What the noble Baroness has described is a crime. Those people shouting racist abuse at Jewish people or Muslims on the way to a mosque are committing a crime under the existing legislation that has been in place for many years. It has nothing to do with the recording of police intelligence, which is unfettered by this amendment, and it is certainly the case that what she has described is de facto a criminal offence.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I referred to the comments made by previous speakers on this group who talked about police wasting their time recording. The two groups of people I have just referred to have tried to report these incidents and have not been able to get them taken particularly seriously. Therein lies the problem. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, that there has to be new, revised, clear guidance about how the police need to process these things. It may be that there will be many that are not now processed, but we cannot just say that we should get rid of non-crime hate incidents in their entirety.
A lot of the other speeches during this debate have talked about the polarisation in our society being because people are now saying things to others, with people becoming offended. We discussed this briefly last week. The things being said to people on the street would not have been said five or six years ago. People might have thought them as they walked past, but it was quite rare. We are deeply offended if it targets us. We often do not recognise when we are being offensive to other people. I say again: there is something about the way our society is working at the moment that means we have to learn to look at ourselves, not just at the others we do not like. The police, who are literally trying to police all this, are in a very invidious position. They need tools to record information because it helps them to assess and understand when other things happen. It is much broader than non-crime hate incidents, as I have alluded to already.
Paul Giannasi OBE, the national hate crime lead for the police, has been reviewing the current protocols and his recommendations for a new code of practice will be very welcome. I am sure, from what the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has said and from what I have heard elsewhere, that there certainly will be changes. We have to understand that the key issue here is balancing those individual rights: the absolute freedom of expression as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—he and I had a debate about JS Mill last week—alongside the state’s obligation to protect citizens against targeted victimisation. The police must be able to gather intelligence and evidence and log symbolic messaging to targeted groups. All the other things—about whether those end up on DBS—can be looked at as part of this review, and I am sure they will be. But the police need to see that bigger, wider picture.
One of the problems about the Lawrence murder was that the police were not watching what was happening in that community in the months and years running up to it. That institutional blindness was certainly one of the things that came out of the inquiry. As others have said, the monitoring of such incidents was the result of the recommendations by Sir William Macpherson as part of his public inquiry in response to Stephen Lawrence’s murder.
I come back to this point: in terms of practical value, the police must be able to record incidents that do not in and of themselves amount to criminal offence, because many crimes, such as I described with harassment, and indeed with stalking, require evidence of a course of conduct. People say to me, “Oh, but stalking is always about relationships; that’s not about a hate crime”. Quite a lot of stalking is actually non-domestic, and it is targeted at somebody because of a particular characteristic.
I finish on the point I made right at the start about the evidence that police need for this course of conduct if behaviour escalates. If a group of people go out and do things again and again, there is a point at which it is going to tip over. I was party to and a survivor of something that ended up as 132 crimes; once the police saw all the evidence that we had been holding of the earlier non-crime hate, it was extremely helpful when things started to escalate. Reform is absolutely needed. We hope that the review will have recommendations for a new regime. But I also hope that it will not leave victims vulnerable, either from perpetrators whose behaviour escalates or from police who are not quite clear about the role they have in recording non-crime incidents.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this very important amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs.
The status quo is untenable. It undermines free speech, diverts police resources from real crime and risks criminalising people for behaviour that is lawful and should remain outside the criminal justice system. We on these Benches firmly support the abolition of non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime hate incidents in essence are reports of conduct perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a protected characteristic which do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. Under current law, police forces record and retain personal data about those incidents, even though no crime has occurred and no legal breach has been established. That alone is problematic but, in practice, the effects are far worse. Current figures estimate that around 13,000 non-crime hate incidents are logged annually, consuming an estimated 60,000-plus hours of police time that could be better directed to tackling burglary, serious violence, organised crime and other priority areas.
Recording an incident and retaining personal data about motives that are merely perceived rather than proven also has a detrimental and unwelcome effect on free speech. People who express lawful opinions, engage in robust debate or even make clumsy social media posts can find themselves on a police database, not because they have committed a crime but because someone has taken offence to those remarks.
This is not a hypothetical shortcoming of policy: there have been cases where almost trivial or schoolyard remarks became the subject of police records. In one high-profile instance, the arrest of a public figure over a social media post was initially associated with a non-crime hate incident, sparking national debate about policing speech and proportionality. It is no surprise, then, that police leaders and independent watchdogs are reassessing the value of non-crime hate incidents. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary has publicly stated that non-crime hate incidents should not be recorded by police because they risk conflating the offensive with the criminal, diminishing public trust and harming legitimate free expression.
Similarly, the Metropolitan Police recently announced that it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents, recognising the difficulty that officers face when drawn into matters that are not criminal by definition. The Government’s response to date has been to commission yet another review, with the suggestion that policy decisions should wait until later in the year. But on an issue that so directly impacts both civil liberties and police effectiveness, delay is not a defensible option.
Amendment 416E would go further than reviews. It would abolish the concept of non-crime hate incidents entirely, prohibit any police authority from recording or processing related personal data and require the deletion of existing records. In doing so, it draws a clear distinction between criminal behaviour, which it is right that the police investigate, and lawful expression or debate that should not be subject to police recording or sanction.
We cannot allow a system that treats controversial yet lawful speech as if it were a matter for the criminal justice system. This amendment is a sensible and necessary step to realign policing with its once core mission of protecting people from crime and harm, not policing speech or perceptions. Therefore, we on these Benches very much support this amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for tabling this amendment. This has been a useful debate, and I hope that we can at least look at the common direction of travel on this matter: the need for reform.
I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, through the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Herbert of South Downs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss. They have raised a range of issues that, in essence, point to the need for change in this system.
I think it is fair to say, and I hope that the Committee will accept, that the current Government have held office since July 2024. There has been a lot of discussion on the issues caused by, and effect of, non-crime hate incidents since the guidance was published in 2014. I do not want to lose the principle, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Herbert of South Downs, that the non-crime hate incident regime had its genesis in the Macpherson report, and in trying to anticipate and examine where crimes were being committed, potentially in the future, and monitor a range of abuses that were present.
However, I say to the Committee—and I think this was recognised by Members in their contributions today —that how the police should respond to hate incidents that fall below the criminal threshold is a complex and sensitive issue. That is precisely why the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Normanton, and the current Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Shabana Mahmood, the Member for Ladywood, have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to conduct a thorough review into non-crime hate incidents.
The review is examining whether the current approach is proportionate, consistent and compatible with the fundamental right to free expression—which goes to very point that was made. As the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said, the review is being led by policing experts and is expected to conclude, in his words, “shortly”. The publication date is one for the College of Policing. We have had the interim report, which has said that there are significant concerns in the way non-crime hate incidents are operating.
Given the points that have been made today, and given that the Government have commissioned a review, seen the interim report and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, expect to receive the final report shortly, I would again ask the Committee to bear with us—I know that I have asked for this on a number of occasions—to examine what professional police officers and the College of Policing are recommending on non-crime hate incidents.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, rightly asked some significant questions. What is happening to database logging of anti-social behaviour incidents? What is happening to people who have previously had non-crime hate incidents put against their name? What is happening with regard to non-disclosure? What is happening in terms of the publication of the report and the Government’s response? Those are all fair and legitimate questions.
However, I say to the noble Lord and the Committee that the current Government have come in, recognised that there is an issue, commissioned the College of Policing to look at that issue and have received an independent report, and we expect a full report on how we can deal with those issues and tweak the regime so that we do not lose the very good things that have sometimes been brought out of non-crime hate incidents and we do not throw everything out immediately. I do not know what the final report is going to say.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said:
“The review has found that the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose, and there is a need for broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities. The recording of hurt feelings and differing views should not continue”.—[Official Report, 16/10/25; col. 406.]
That is a very clear statement. However, in moving from that in the interim report to whatever the new regime might be, it is incumbent on the Government to reflect on what the final report says. I am not ducking the amendment that the noble Lord has brought forward, nor his challenge that we need to make some changes. As he says, there is an open door. If we did not want this to be reviewed, we would not have asked the College of Policing and the Police Chiefs’ Council to review the incidence of non-crime hate incidents. Self-evidently, some of the examples given today are not what the original purpose of that legislation and approach was meant to be.
Going back to the Macpherson report, there was a serious element as to how assessments have been made. In Committee today, Members have talked about anti- semitism, racism and a range of incidents where the collection of information might give a bigger intelligence picture that requires a policing response, but which may or may not be a policing response that requires individuals to have their names put against them.
The concerns of everybody, from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, through to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, are legitimate, and the Government want to look at and address them. I hope that this can be examined. However, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and await the outcome of the police review, so that any reforms are grounded in both robust evidence and a consensus.
Ultimately, the Government must and will take some decisions, and we will be held to account in the House of Commons and in this House as well. In the absence of that detailed response, I am not sure that I can come to this Committee and say, “This is what we will do”, because we need to examine that in detail.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his customary courtesy. I can accept his point that, since the Home Office has not yet received the final report, and Report may start in two or three-weeks’ time, it may not be possible to bring forward detailed primary legislation on Report. However, it seems to me—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Herbert can confirm this—that many of the changes may be administrative matters for the police and may not require legislation. What may require legislation may therefore be quite small. This Government, like the last one, love Henry VIII clauses. So would it not be possible for the Government to accept a simple Henry VIII clause so that, where legislation is required on this, a proper regulation can be brought in in the future, once the Government have consulted on what is required, to implement any of the legal changes necessary to give effect to my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in the nicest possible way, that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has given strict instructions to Government Ministers on Henry VIII clauses, and the various statutory instrument committees in this House and in the House of Commons have also expressed a grave view on them.
I put it to the Committee—and I hope that the Committee will accept this in good faith, as I am trying to do it in good faith—that the Government have recognised that there is a problem, and the Government have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to examine that problem. The Government have received an interim report, which the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, referred to at Second Reading. The Government are awaiting the final report, which the noble Lord has said is coming shortly. I have not seen the final report. There may be things in it that maintain, change or revoke altogether the issues that have, quite rightly, been raised. But, if the Government had not realised that there was a problem, we would not have asked for solutions to be brought forward.
I know that I occasionally say, “Something will be happening very shortly”, but I say, in genuine help and support for the Committee, that we know that there is a problem. We want to change that problem, but we are trying to make sure that we get sufficiently robust professional advice to be able to make some political decisions based on the advice that we receive. With that, I have tried to help the noble Lord and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minster as he was getting towards the end of his speech. I have just one point: whatever advice the college gives, there will need to be a litmus test for whether the Government will support it. Whatever advice is given, I encourage the Government to make sure that it is clear, so that officers on the street understand it. If we end up with another series of 20 conditions, that will not simplify things. We must have a litmus test. For me, it might be, “If the officer acted in good faith and within the law as they believed it, we will support them”. I am not saying that that is the answer in this case, but it should be something simple.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, brings great experience to this. In his initial contribution, and in these comments, he gives food for thought as to how we implement the decisions of any review and how Ministers ultimately give guidance to police, which chief constables then put in place for police officers on the ground to deal with. We will look at that. The whole purpose of the review is to simplify this procedure, looking at what is necessary and helpful, and to get the police to focus on the things that really matter. Some of the examples that have been given today are things that the police should not be focusing on because they do not matter at all.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it is important that we look at what the regulations and the review say. We can act administratively on much of what happens. I have no doubt that the Government will do so, once we receive the final review.
I simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for the moment, to withdraw the amendment. He has the right to bring his amendments back on Report. We will have a clearer picture at some point in the very near future. I hope this has been a helpful debate.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his gracious response. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for co-sponsoring the amendment and for his excellent contributions to this debate. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a speedy recovery. I thank my noble friends Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the police, under very difficult circumstances, do an excellent job on the whole and I admire what they do. But I think he is right that having to record and investigate non-crime hate incidents is as unpopular with ordinary police officers on the front line as it is with free speech campaigners. They do not want to be wasting their time in this way. Many of them have reached out to me to tell me that and to support this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution.
If you look at proposed new subsection (4), you will find that nothing in the amendment would prevent the police recording information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motive in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. I am sceptical whether the police should be allowed to record incidents that clearly do not meet the threshold of being crimes for intelligence-gathering purposes, not least because there is very little persuasive evidence that that is helpful when it comes to preventing crimes, and I am generally suspicious of the concept of pre-crime—of trying to nip potential crimes in the bud by monitoring carefully incidents that do not quite meet the threshold of criminal offences. However, I am not going to die in a ditch and say that the police should never, under any circumstances, be able to record incidents that do not meet the threshold of being a criminal offence for intelligence-gathering purposes, provided that the recording of those incidents has no adverse consequences for the people they are recorded against.
That brings me to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which, on the whole, were very welcome. I am pleased that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council recognise that NCHIs are not fit for purpose and that the regime should be scrapped and replaced with something much better, but I want to respond briefly to two points made by my noble friend.
First, my noble friend acknowledged, I think, that the recording threshold for NCHIs is currently too low, and that when the regime is replaced by another, such as the anti-social behaviour incident regime, the threshold as to what incidents should be recorded will be higher. The implicit acknowledgement that the threshold has hitherto been too low strikes me as a persuasive argument for scrapping those incidents that have been recorded under the lower threshold. If the threshold was too low, that is an acknowledgement that the incidents should not have been recorded. That is a good argument for why they should be deleted once this system has been overhauled.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Herbert maintains that, even though chief constables have the discretion to disclose NCHIs when responding to enhanced DBS checks, the College of Policing could not find a single example of chief constables having done that. If that is the case then there is no cost to the Home Office agreeing that, henceforth, under the new regime, anti-social behaviour incidents—if that is what we are going to call them—should not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The fear that they might be—that, not having committed a crime, that is recorded against your name and could stop you getting a job or volunteering at a school or for a charity—is why the current regime has had such a chilling effect on free speech. If none has been disclosed, why not go that one small step further and say that, henceforth, they will not be disclosed?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord is coming to the end of his remarks. When responding on amendments, you are meant to be relatively brief. He has had five and a half minutes now.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Police power to confiscate undocked electric cycles and scooters for hire(1) The police may confiscate any undocked electric cycle or scooter for hire which has been left on—(a) a public pavement,(b) a public highway,(c) any other public place, including pedestrian precincts, or(d) any other place where the owners have not given consent for electric cycles or scooters to be collected.(2) The police must take reasonable steps to notify the hire company responsible for the electric cycle or scooter confiscated under subsection (1).(3) The police may charge the hire company with responsibility for the electric cycle or scooter confiscated under this section a fee of up to £1,000 for the release of the electric cycle or scooter.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, delegate local authorities or authorised agents to exercise powers on behalf of the police under this section.(5) If the Secretary of State delegates powers under subsection (4), they must publish a code of practice for local authorities and authorised agents on the implementation of confiscation powers and the charging of fees under this section.(6) For the purposes of this section—“local authority” means any council, unitary authority, district or other body with statutory responsibility for highways, public order, or refuse disposal, and“authorised agent” means any person or organisation appointed in writing by a local authority.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be pleased to know that this is my last batch of amendments on the scourge of illegal bikes scattering our pavements and those big bikes the size of motorbikes mowing us down on the pavement. The Committee will also be pleased to know that, as I am attending the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, this is probably the last speech I will be making on the Bill for a short time.
The problem we face is plain and immediate. Thousands of dockless e-bikes and e-scooters have been dumped across our pavements and public spaces, creating a chaotic, inconsistent and dangerous environment for pedestrians. It is not often that I can agree with the Mayor of London, who described the rollout of these services as having become something of a “Wild West”, a term I understand that he took from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There has been a rapid commercial expansion of cycling without the regulatory framework or parking infrastructure needed to protect the public and preserve access to our streets.
This is not an abstract nuisance but a daily reality for people trying to get to work, for parents with pushchairs, for older people, and for blind and visually impaired citizens, who rely on clear and unobstructed tactile routes. It is a public safety and accessibility crisis that has been documented repeatedly by local authorities, clinicians and charities, and it demands a statutory response. Amendments 416H and 416I would provide that response. One would create a targeted operator charge to fund enforcement and drive better operational systems; the other would give clear and proportionate powers to remove and permanently dispose of manifestly illegal high-powered machines that pose acute safety and criminal use risks.
The evidence from the ground is clear. Local authorities are already acting because the problem is real and costly. Local enforcement teams in Kensington and Chelsea have seized over 1,000 dangerously parked rental e-bikes this year and recovered more than £81,000 in release and storage fees to fund further enforcement action. They did that after repeated complaints about pavement obstruction and trip hazards. Councils have recovered significant sums in seizure and storage fees and have reinvested that money to expand enforcement activities. These are not isolated seizures but the tip of a systemic problem.
Clinicians are seeing new patterns of injury directly attributed to heavy hire bikes. Trauma and orthopaedic surgeons report a rise in lower leg injuries caused when heavy e-bike frames fall on riders or pedestrians, a phenomenon that has been labelled in clinical and medical circles as “Lime bike leg”. These are not minor bruises: the weight and construction of modern e-bikes, particularly the overheavy Lime ones, mean that even low-speed falls can produce fractures and soft tissue damage requiring hospital treatment.
Charities representing blind and visually impaired people have described how dumped e-bikes block tactile paving and prevent safe access to crossings, forcing people to alter or abandon journeys. One campaigner described repeatedly walking into e-bikes and being “put off” visiting central areas because of the unpredictability and danger of obstructed pavements. Residents and local councillors are vocal. Councils report that residents are “sick” of e-bikes blocking footpaths and that the current situation is undermining confidence in local streets. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they reflect sustained public pressure and the failure of voluntary operator-led measures to deliver consistent outcomes.
So who is responsible, and why have voluntary measures failed? The nuisance is concentrated among a small number of large operators that have scaled fleets rapidly: Lime, Forest, Voi and newer entrants such as Bolt. These companies operate dockless models that rely on users to park responsibly. Where that expectation is not met, the public realm becomes cluttered and dangerous.
Operators have taken some steps—funding parking bays, running in-app messages and offering incentives for correct parking—but these voluntary measures have not been sufficient to prevent widespread obstruction or to ensure rapid removal of dangerous or blocking bikes. The result is a patchwork of local rules and inconsistent enforcement that leaves vulnerable people exposed and councils bearing the cost of removal.
Councils are not standing idly by, but the tools they currently have are reactive and costly. Seizure and storage operations require staff time, secure storage facilities and administrative processing. Councils are forced into an expensive cycle of removal and storage because operators do not consistently prevent or properly remedy dangerous parking. I go further and submit that they simply do not care. They are making big money from e-bike hire, so why should they bother about safe parking when there is no penalty on them for letting their users dump them anywhere they like?
I turn to my Amendment 416H, on the operator charge, its justification and its effect. The proposed operator charge is a proportionate “polluter pays” mechanism that would ensure that those who profit from dockless fleets meet the real costs their services impose on the public realm. Operators make big profits from large fleets and dense urban coverage. Where voluntary agreements fail, statutes should set clear duties to ensure safe parking and fund the use of designated bays, to remove and relocate dangerously parked bikes within a short enforceable timeframe, and to be accountable for repeat non-compliance.
Where operators’ business models externalise the costs of pavement obstruction and enforcement, it is fair and efficient to require them to internalise those costs and pay for them themselves. Revenues from the charge could be used by local authorities to fund enforcement teams and rapid removal to secure storage; invest in parking infrastructure, such as a designated parking spaces, where required; and fund data-sharing and monitoring systems, which would enable councils to identify repeat non-compliance and target enforcement.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I would like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in his Amendment 416I, as the Committee will not be massively surprised to hear, given that we have covered this on previous occasions.
The police are turning a blind eye to the use of illegal vehicles on our streets. Why is that? I should like the Minister to answer that question, if at all possible. Illegal vehicles on our streets should be seized and destroyed. There should be a campaign to do that; if that happened, they would not come back. At the moment, the use of illegal vehicles is tolerated. If people were riding illegal petrol-powered motorcycles around London, they would very quickly find themselves in trouble. If people were driving trucks with no licence plates on them, they would very quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. At the moment, the large delivery companies in particular are facilitating this. They are contractors, but, none the less, their agents are using illegal vehicles for commercial purposes. That should not be allowed and the Government should put a stop to it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, that fact that someone has brought forward these two amendments makes me feel like saying, “Hurrah!” It is not just in Kensington and Chelsea. I live in EC4, and I spend my time walking on the road to get round the huge groups of mainly Lime bikes. I have not checked as to whether they are illegal, but the fact is that a great many of them take up a great deal of space and it seems absolutely extraordinary that nothing is being done about it. I watch other people, particularly women with pushchairs—even in EC4 there are women with pushchairs—and sometimes people in wheelchairs, either negotiating gingerly these bikes or walking, as I find myself walking, on the road. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully what is being suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, because this really is a scourge. I say “Hurrah” to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these two amendments after Clause 144 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are trying to give further powers to address the issue of dockless bikes and scooters, which we have discussed many times in this Chamber and which have become an issue on many streets in cities across the country, whether they are part of a scheme or privately owned. This is a big issue for pedestrians, as we have heard, as they find their route blocked by bikes and scooters, despite a number of local authorities installing dedicated parking places for such micromobility schemes.
We are all aware, as we have heard in this debate, of the challenges that local authorities have faced trying to manage these vehicles on pavements and highways. However, there is a further issue. As City AM reported last month, a London property firm had to invoice Lime for nearly £8,000 for removing, storing and returning dockless bikes left on private land. Despite the ability to geofence where bikes can be left, I understand from reading this article that it took Lime 11 months to fence off this bit of private land as a no-parking zone on its app—and even then bikes continued to appear. This is about the management and regulation of these schemes. There are many stories like this, where riders park up their bikes near stations or other transport hubs, cluttering pavements or indeed parking on private land, causing issues with access and deliveries for residents.
The devolution Bill making its way through the House will start to help with the management of micromobility schemes across the country, some of which, as we discussed earlier in this Committee, have been on trial many times over many years, partly extended by the previous Government. We need legislation on this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether future legislation will come to tighten up the rules on what is safely allowed on our streets, on how people park and the regulations, and on what a safe and legal vehicle is on our streets.
These amendments are trying to deal with the inevitable consequence of recent Governments not acting to keep up with the explosion of different types of micromobility on our streets. I hope to hear some assurance from the Minister about future legislation to deal with the understandable concerns across the Committee.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said, we have spent much time in our previous debates in Committee on provisions regarding the use or misuse of electric cycles and scooters. Much of what can be said has already been said, so I hope not to detain the Committee for long.
As always, my noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a strong argument in favour of his amendments in this group. I thank him for his tenacity in this area. There are strong feelings on this in your Lordships’ House, as many of us have had negative experiences with users of electric bikes and scooters, but these amendments address a slightly different problem.
Amendment 416H would permit the police to confiscate electric bikes and scooters that have been abandoned in a public place. As other noble Lords have said, if one requires any evidence as to the extent of this problem, they need only take a stroll down any major road in London. The pavements seem to have become obstacle courses of undocked electric bikes. All this presents serious challenges; they block users of wheelchairs and parents with pushchairs, as well as those with visual impairments, creating hazards for pedestrians, who may be forced into the road. For this reason, these Benches see no reason to object to the police being given greater powers to confiscate such scooters and electric bikes. If the Government have any objection to this proposal, I look forward to the Minister outlining precisely what they plan on doing to tackle this issue.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I was slightly sad to hear that this is the last of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on tackling e-bikes and scooters and, as someone coined, the Wild West that is our streets. Before he rides into the sunset on this subject, I would like to say that we share the intention behind these amendments, which seek to tackle obstructive parking and other use of hire e-scooters and bicycles. It may not surprise the noble Lord to hear, however, that the Government are not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.
I have to be very unfair before the dinner break and say that, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is Butch Cassidy, we had the Sundance Kid of this debate in the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. Once again, he asked about action being taken. I repeat what I said earlier, on Amendment 416, and say to him and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the police are taking action. I refer again to the winter action initiative, running from the start of December last year to the end of January. That is focused on making town centres across England and Wales safer as a whole by building on the summer streets initiative, continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not an issue that the police are blind to. Ultimately, we cannot want them to have operational independence in theory but not let that be carried out in practice.
I will not detain the Committee any further and will move on to the meat of the amendments. Amendments 416H and 416I would risk creating confusion in an area where the Government are already establishing a clear and proportionate regulatory framework. We are empowering local leaders to license shared cycle schemes, and potentially shared e-scooter schemes, in future through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, as we speak, has started its Committee stage next door in the Grand Committee. This licensing framework, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred, will empower local authorities to set parking requirements and act quickly and decisively where these are not met. To respond to the noble Baroness directly on micromobility, this is something that we have signalled an intention to act on when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I cannot be any clearer on that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. If the powers exist, are the police actually using them?
Lord Katz (Lab)
They are, but we always leave it to chief officers to direct their police forces to use the full waterfront of different powers and regulations under their purview. We can always encourage them. I am sure that a number of chief officers will be looking intently at the debates in all the days of Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill and will understand the priorities the Committee voices. Certainly, with no little thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others, we have had plenty of debate on this issue and they will have heard that it is one of extreme concern.
Clause 8 will allow the police to act immediately to stop offending behaviour and confiscate vehicles without delay. In addition, the Government have consulted on changes to secondary legislation to enable quicker disposal of seized vehicles, and our response will be published in due course. These measures demonstrate the Government’s commitment to effectively tackling the illegal and anti-social use of micro-mobility devices such as e-bikes and e-scooters without duplicating powers that are already in place.
I want to stress that riding a privately owned electric scooter on public roads is illegal, and the police have powers to take enforcement action against offenders, including seizure of the e-scooter for the offence of driving without insurance or a licence. The enforcement of road traffic law remains an operational matter for chief officers, who are best placed to allocate resources according to local needs, threats, risks and priorities. The Government will continue to support the police with the tools and powers they need, but this amendment would add unnecessary complexity without improving public safety. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords and the Minister for speaking in this short but important little debate on cycling. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—and, for the first time, a Lib Dem spokesperson has supported, in concept, one of my cycling amendments. I am either on the right side, maybe, or I am doing something terribly wrong if the Lib Dems are backing me.
Over the past few weeks, as we debated various amendments that I put down on bikes of all sorts, and looked at delivery couriers cycling on pavements on these big, fast, heavy, illegal bikes, and the scooters and bikes dumped on the pavements, the general mood was, “Well, your amendments are not perfect, Lord Blencathra, but there’s a problem here and something needs to be done about it”. I hear what the Minister has said, as far as these big, illegal bikes like motorbikes are concerned: they are already illegal and the police have power to do something about them. He suggested that the powers in the devolution Bill will deal with all these cycling problems. Between now and Report, I shall look more carefully at the Bill to see if it does cover all the gaps, but it may be that on Report we will still want to bring back some little amendment on one of these issues—possibly on the precarious criminal liability of delivery couriers, which we discussed last time. A lot of colleagues thought this was terribly wrong and that something needed to be done about it. However, if the Government do something about it, I will not need to, but if they do not do what we think we need to do, I will do something on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.