Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that they have consulted, although not formally, with “key policing stakeholders” but, as others have said, the Secondary Legislation Committee says in its 35th report that it asked the Home Office whether they had consulted more widely,

“for example, free speech advocates, those representing victims or data protection interest groups—and, if not, why was this not considered appropriate”.

The Government’s response worries me. They said:

“Given the democratic scrutiny that the code will be subject to and the comprehensive policing input received, the Government did not consult more widely”.


I will focus on how some of the other stakeholders might feel with the introduction of this. Parts of it are certainly welcome. My worry is about the boundaries between what are and are not non-crime hate incidents and other offences. I will come on to that.

At this point, I should declare that, as a disabled person who has used a wheelchair for a decade, I have been on the receiving end of hate crimes, non-crime hate incidents and, I am sorry to say, threatening behaviour and even assault. Some 15 years ago, I was also the victim of a harassment and stalking campaign sustained over a period of two years in which 100 incidents of escalating crimes—that is, nuisances then crimes—were committed, even though the initial incidents were not. So, as I read the code of practice, the boundaries between these different categories—especially in some of the examples, which are key to the education of officers in how they will assess what is and is not a non-crime hate incident—have raised questions.

The additional threshold test for the recording of data is helpful, especially if—as noted in paragraph 22 of the code of practice—the person

“who has experienced the incident is considered to be vulnerable”.

The existing guidelines on recognising vulnerability are extremely helpful and sensible, and to be commended. I ask the Minister: is the reference to vulnerability in the code strong enough, with only a passing reference to the guidelines then a need to click on a hyperlink?

This raises another concern: the examples focus on hate incidents, whether crime or non-crime, and ignore other considerations that police officers should perhaps address. In example D on page 15 of the code, which concerns a resident’s report of a number of NCHIs occurring in a dispute between neighbours, the wording in the box focuses entirely on whether or not to record these incidents as NCHIs. My issue is that other flags should be also raised about the neighbours’ dispute because of the volume of incidents reported. This certainly begins to look like harassment but the focus in the code is on the decision of whether to record.

The problem with harassment, especially that type of harassment, is that it escalates, often in a worsening pattern of behaviour. The early decision on whether or not to record is now weighed with the freedom of speech issue only. Part III of paragraph 31, on page 15 of the code, says:

“All recording authorities have a duty to balance the right to free expression … and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s). All efforts should be made to avoid a chilling effect on free speech (including, but not limited to, lawful debate, humour, satire and personally held views)”.


My concern is with the phrase “all efforts”. The focus of that entire paragraph is free speech. Can the Minister assure me that the issues around an already visible pattern of behaviour—some criminal, some not—in a matter that might be, or progress to be, a crime of, say, affray, assault or harassment, are being considered only in terms of the narrow issue of crime/non-crime hate incidents and in relation to freedom of speech?

My next area of concern relates to two different points, one in paragraph 34 and one in example J, on pages 18 to 19 of the code. First, example J says:

“An individual who uses a wheelchair reports to the police that a man approached her during a house party and threatened her in circumstances that could amount to a crime under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. In doing so, the man also made derogatory comments about her disability. A police officer is of the view that this incident would have been recorded as a disability hate crime had this occurred in a public place given the demonstrable threat and hostility that was evident”.


The response to the scenario then focuses entirely on the Public Order Act not being enforceable in a private dwelling, therefore making the incident a non-crime hate incident, but says that, because of the threatening language and the possibility of future escalation, it should be processed and recorded.

I am horrified by this example. Assuming that threatening behaviour that could have amounted to a crime occurred, this is not just a Public Order Act offence. It could also be affray, assault or harassment, all of which are crimes. It also might not be a private event—as in a domestic one, implied by the use of “private dwelling”—even if it is in a private dwelling. If I went to a large party and was threatened—the word used at the beginning of the example—including with disability abuse, I as a victim would not understand why the Public Order Act negates my complaint. My concern would be about what just happened to me. Someone saying, “Sorry, madam, it just happened in the wrong place”, is not going to make me feel safer.

That is part of the problem with the lack of consultation with victims and community groups: this code is written for the police, with no understanding at all of where individual citizens and what happens to them fits in. Example J also illustrates a wider point for disabled people about how this code of practice will be viewed and operated, but it could equally apply to anyone with a protected characteristic.

About six years ago, I was waiting to exit through the wide ticket barriers at Euston. The woman in front of me was shouting down her phone and then, completely randomly, started to shout at me, complaining about my wheelchair being in her way and disabled people in general. This escalated into her trying to use a kick-boxing kick at me; fortunately, she missed me and hit the wheelchair, which I think left her worse off. Everyone else stood back until she ran off and then, too late, came to my aid. I had not said one word during this. I have to say that I was in shock. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will be pleased to hear that the British Transport Police was very helpful and supportive. The police found the CCTV and were absolutely clear that this was an attempt to assault me—the combination of shouting directly into my face and then the kick. They were also convinced that she targeted me because I was an easy target and disabled, so it was also recorded as a hate crime. But now the emphasis is on free speech.

As I read Example J, officers will spend their time focusing on whether it is or is not a hate crime incident or a non-crime hate incident and whether it needs to be recorded, rather than the highly abusive behaviour in which that woman used hate language to threaten me and attempted to physically hurt me. Can the Minister say how officers will be reminded that the priority must be to look at every incident as a whole, including other potential crimes, rather than solely to look at the code of practice?

Secondly, on the issue of reporting, I, along with many other disabled travellers, am on the end of abusive verbal incidents on trains. It happens regularly. Comments such as “People like you shouldn’t be allowed on the train during rush hour” or “Why are people like you taking up space where I want to sit?” are regular. They can and do also use abusive language, right in your face—“cripple”, “retard” or even worse. It may be a generic statement and fall under the Home Secretary’s definition of free speech, but the delivery of it leaves the recipient in no doubt that it was intended to be personal. It is personal, and train conductors say that they repeatedly see the same people behaving badly. The ability to record these incidents as NCHIs is therefore important, because it means that a pattern of behaviour can be tracked and followed, as needed. My concern is that police officers, always under pressure, might ever look only at the one incident in front of them; then, if they decide not to record it, there is no trail of consistent abusive behaviour.

Finally, the chair of a hate crime panel in the south-east said to us that they are concerned that this instrument will impact negatively on confidence in reporting. We know that confidence in the police is already low in some communities and these Benches are very concerned about it. For these reasons, starting with the lack of proper consultation as highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, and the unclear narrative in the text and examples about how this fits into broader incidents and crimes, and where the boundaries are, I give notice from these Benches that we may well want to bring this matter to the full House.

Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

3rd reading
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Janke cannot be in her place today, so I am delighted to thank, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Minister for her remarks and all Peers who have taken part during passage of this Bill. I also want to thank the Minister’s officials, who have been very helpful. It was encouraging that the Bill is supported cross-party. It may be a short Bill, but we believe that its effects will be transformative to those individuals, and their families, who have to face a terminal illness and the financial shocks that go with it as they live the last few months of their lives.

We, too, decided not to table amendments, though we would have liked to, because we felt it was important that this Bill proceeded quickly. Prior to the Second Reading, we had discussions with Marie Curie and other organisations about whether the Government should review the impact of the legislation after a year and make an assessment as to whether the provisions of the Act have had a significant impact on reducing levels of poverty for individuals with a life expectancy of less than 12 months.

We draw the same parallel as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that in Scotland they deleted any reference to timeframes. I think this would help to give us a comparator once the Bill has been enacted and put into practice in England for a year.

I want to pick up also the point that the noble Baroness made about time for the processing of claims. I made this point at Second Reading, and I hope that for everyone it will be as speedy as possible. I was reassured the Minister said that moving it to 12 months would not slow the process down, but we remain concerned that for some people it is still not as fast as it should be, given the straits that they find themselves in.

At the Second Reading I raised the current anomalies in the rules for the benefits of severely disabled children aged under three, compared to those over three. The Minister kindly agreed to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister for myself and Together for Short Lives. Unfortunately, I have been offered a policy officer to answer my questions by email, which, while being very kind—and I appreciate the offer—is not quite what the Minister said. As I said at Second Reading, this is a policy decision to treat seriously ill small children differently to their older peers, so please can I repeat my request for a meeting with the relevant Minister?

That aside, from these Benches we welcome this short but vital Bill and look forward in hope that it will ease some of the financial difficulties faced by terminally ill people and their families.

Schools Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his introduction to Amendment 112A and the many others in this group. Amendment 112A is important, as it gives parents the right of appeal to a local authority that refuses to accept their reasons for why their child is not being taught in school.

I am particularly supportive of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: to be seen as being open and positive with parents who want to home educate their children. Some years ago, I saw an excellent example while on a study tour of Education Otherwise in California. I visited the American River Charter School, an independent home school based at Sierra community college, north of Sacramento. It was a parent-driven, teacher-supported, not in the mainstream school, the equivalent of an FE college. Many of the students participate in educational field trips and come together to do lab work with supervising teachers, but only if the parents want it.

Schools Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a former chair of governors of Mayfield Primary School in Cambridge, which at that time had the hearing impaired unit for southern Cambridgeshire.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 97 on arrangements for funding for specialist SEND services for children and young people with sensory impairment. I completely support it. I have heard very recently of a profoundly deaf child, the only one in his mainstream primary school, who has access to a deaf teacher for just one afternoon a week. That is not inclusive education.

The Secretary of State must give local authorities the right level of funds, in this case through the high-needs block, so that they can deliver the support that SEND children need. This is the key to the current SEND issue: the money does not get to the local authority so the local authority cannot follow the child and the child’s needs; this probably explains many of the problems that we are discussing in this group.

Amendment 99 adds to Clause 48 that the details of any SEN or disability that a child has need to be listed; I support that too. I also support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who set out so eloquently the further protections needed for pupils with SEND. Amendment 163 at last demands a strategy to close the education attainment gap for young people with SEND.

Last Friday I attended a webinar run by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, at which parents recounted many of the problems they are facing in getting the right level of support; or worse—as in the case of one parent of a child with multiple physical disabilities but who was intellectually on a par with his peer age group. The only school available to manage the former issue could not teach him at his chronological age; every other child in that school also had learning difficulties.

Even worse, Oskar Nash and Sammy Alban-Stanley, two disabled teenagers with complex medical needs, both died after their school and LA failed in their duty to follow their care plans. Their families had pleaded for support in helping them to cope with the boys’ disabilities. Sammy’s mother told us at the webinar how exhausting it had been to constantly have to fight for the support he needed. CAMHS had recommended a care education and treatment review, but it was not actioned before his death. Oskar Nash was moved from a special school to a mainstream school without further review of his EHCP. Despite urgent referrals to CAMHS, which passed him on to an external counselling service without any clinical assessment, at the time of his death his local authority, Surrey County Council, had not done an assessment of his needs. Coroners in both these cases are extremely concerned about the boys’ deaths and have written recently to Mr Zahawi, Mr Javid and the local education and healthcare bodies involved.

I have worked with families with disabled children for years. These cases are the tip of the iceberg. The system is broken. Children are dying and children are being let down. While many of the amendments relating to Part 4 of the Bill relate to the concerns of parents who have chosen to home-educate their children, I want to focus in this group on a number of different groups of pupils who do not wish to be out of school but who face difficulties, either with their needs not being met or who have medical conditions that mean they are out of school. They broadly fall into the category of school being an unsafe place for them either without medical advice being followed or, for some, without reasonable adjustments that would have made school safe for them.

Almost universally, all these affected children are getting no alternative provision at all. They include pupils so severely bullied that they are waiting for mental health appointments but cannot face school until they get help. There are also pupils who are young carers known to their local authorities, who are doing a full-time job caring for a parent or other family member and are emotionally and physically exhausted. There are pupils with complex medical needs, with clinical requirements that are not being followed by the school. There are pupils who are either immunosuppressed or immunocompromised, whose doctors say that special arrangements should be made for them in school; otherwise, they are at risk of catching illnesses—such as, but not only, Covid—which might kill them.

Dr Lee-Anne Kohli’s son Kieran is clinically extremely vulnerable. His paediatric cardiologists requested remote learning for both of her children. This was agreed until Department for Education policy changed. From September 2020, the school enforced new government policy that every child must attend school. When the school threatened fines and prosecution for persistent absences and recommended to the parents that the child be off-rolled, the parents eventually did this. Children such as Kieran should have access to remote exams but most exam centres do not permit remote exams. The parents say that, if a school attendance order were enforced against them, the children would have no option but to relocate overseas to live with their father as UK schools are not safe for their child; the hospital doctor says so too.

“Child EA” is due to start primary school this autumn. Both she and her mother have primary immunodeficiencies and her father is also clinically vulnerable. The family are acutely aware of the issues faced by high-risk families. Both parents have been supported by their employers to work from home. All their child needs to be able to go to school is a HEPA filter to be installed at the school, but the school will not do that. Currently, these parents are considering delaying their decision until their child reaches compulsory school age. They face having to educate her at home alongside her attending a private forest school to allow her to socialise outdoors if there is no HEPA filter in the primary school.

There is one thing that many parents from this group share: they are already being fined for their child being out of school because currently schools have the right to ignore professional medical advice or the advice of other experts such as social workers. This is because the statutory guidance for schools on pupils with medical conditions has been diluted away from its original intentions. It cannot be right for parents to be fined if their child’s safety or needs are not being met in school and where an expert says that, until their safety is assured or their needs are met, the school should make alternative provision for them. Parents are being fined now despite their children being ill. Clauses 48 and 49 will make this much worse, especially if Ministers, local authorities and head teachers are able to decide what is and is not medical, contradicting the advice of professional doctors.

There is a way to remedy all this. Section 100 of the Children and Families Act says:

“The appropriate authority for a school to which this section applies must make arrangements for supporting pupils at the school with medical conditions … In meeting the duty in subsection (1) the appropriate authority must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”


The statutory guidance published in 2014 after the Secretary of State worked with schools, parents, medical charities and Peers, including myself, stated clearly:

“The aim is to ensure that all children with medical conditions, in terms of both physical and mental health, are properly supported in school so that they can play a full and active role in school life, remain healthy and achieve their academic potential.”


It further said:

“Governing bodies should ensure that the school’s policy is explicit about what practice is not acceptable”,


including ignoring “medical evidence or opinion” and penalising

“children for their attendance record if their absences are related to their medical condition.”

That guidance also states how schools, local authorities, doctors, parents and the children themselves should together create a healthcare plan for these children that sets out how best the child’s medical needs can be met. As I have said at earlier stages of this Bill, unfortunately this statutory guidance was changed in 2017, with no consultation with medical charities or parents, to remove the statutory elements about schools having to work with, and not ignore, medical advice.

Page five of the new guidance talks about schools having to follow the duty under the Equality Act for disabled children, but not all children with medical conditions are classified as disabled. Worse, some of the excellent parts of the previous version are now reduced in strength to being merely “further advice”, including working with medical practitioners who know the child.

At the webinar on Friday, I heard about a six year-old child with type 1 insulin-dependent and complex diabetes, ASD, sensory processing disorder, Pica, communication difficulties, severe anxieties and more who has not yet attended school. Nursery consisted of one and a half hours per day and was very inconsistent. Nursery staff were said to be trained in diabetes, but mum was called on a daily basis to check her son’s dropping levels. The family recently attended a SEND tribunal. The tribunal judge found that a SEN school with no medically trained staff or qualified nurse on site can meet need against parental choice of a non-maintained special school. The problem is that the tribunal decision was made of the grounds of the best use of resources, even though the parents argued, “How on earth can you put a price on his life?” The actual effect of that decision is that it is dangerous for the child to be left in school without experienced staff who understand the child’s diabetes properly. I have laid my amendment to make sure that we go back to a previous version, where medical advice is followed for these children.