Police National Database: Facial Images

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is a presumption of deletion in certain categories—certainly for the under-18s, for those not convicted, as the noble Lord said, and for people who have been convicted of a non-recordable offence. These can all request that their images be deleted, but there are exceptions which I think are reasonable—if there is a substantive reason to believe that someone is linked to terrorism, if they are dangerous or if they are linked to organised crime. Otherwise, there is now an arrangement whereby people can request deletion.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am surprised that there are so few photographic records available to the police. I should have thought that there was a good case for all passport photographs to be available to the police. Does my noble friend agree that given a conflict between fighting serious crime, particularly terrorism, and privacy, the British people would almost certainly regard the former as having priority?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend talks about privacy. If everybody was required to put their passport photographs towards a national database there might be a real issue with privacy. What the Government are trying to do, and my noble friend alluded to it, is to have images on record of people previously convicted of a crime. The custody image review is attempting to get rid of the facial images of those who are not convicted—and I include myself in that. If you have a passport but have not been convicted, I am not sure what benefit your photograph could be to the police national database.

Terrorist Attack: Response

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a vital point. In any disaster that I can think of, whether flooding, a terrorist attack or anything else, it is through everyone working together, and that mutual assistance from agencies working together, that we get the best outcomes for our citizens in such awful situations. The noble Baroness is absolutely right.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, as we are talking about terrorism, may I take this opportunity to ask the Government when they expect to stop allowing themselves to be blackmailed by terrorists and their advisers into paying out large sums in order to protect our security services?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think my noble friend knows he is completely off the scope of the Question. I cannot talk about specific incidents because of course they are matters of national security.

Passport Applications: Digitisation

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government have rejected the idea of an identity card, but noble Lords will notice that when they go through passport gates now their face is compared with the photograph on the passport. The machines that do the face recognition, which is a form of biometrics, are very accurate indeed.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a fact that a photograph is merely a rather unsophisticated form of biometrics and that the only safe way of doing this is for the biometrics of any individual to be held centrally? When a person seeks to be identified, the person trying to identify them can, online, compare the biometrics of the person in front of them with those held centrally. That means that you cannot use a fake card or anything else. You need not an identity card but a number, with the biometrics attached centrally to that number.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are a number of biometrics through which a person can be compared—it could be a photograph or fingerprints. The biometrics that we use on the British passport are very robust.

National Identity Cards

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we do have common systems of identification: 84% of people in this country have a passport and 60% have a driving licence. As the noble Lord said, many European countries have identity cards, but we have not seen any evidence that they offer any greater protection than we have in this country.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are quite right not to have identity cards for the very reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that all those documents are forgeable? Surely what is needed is a unique number for every citizen—because if a state does not know who its citizens are for national security, good governance and everything else, it is not in business. If there were a single number to which biometrics could be attached, it would be a big advance. We do not need the actual card.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that my noble friend is saying the same thing as me but in a different way. In this country we have passports and driving licences. As I said, there is no evidence that identity cards have improved security in the European countries that have them.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 181, tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would require a custody officer to do two things once a decision has been made that no further action is to be taken against a suspect because the test for mounting a prosecution, set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, has not been met. First, the custody officer would need to notify the person in writing that no further action is to be taken. Secondly, the written notice must use the phrase “lack of evidence” to describe the reasoning behind the decision.

The Government agree with my noble friend that written notification should be given in all cases. We consulted on this in late 2014 and Clauses 65 and 66 would require a written notification to be given to any person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, where the police or Crown Prosecution Service subsequently decide not to charge. This applies whether or not the person is on bail following the reforms set out in Part 4 of the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment would go one stage further and require the written notification of no further action in those cases where a person is interviewed under caution on suspicion of an offence but not arrested. We know from anecdotal evidence that, since the amendment of PACE Code G in 2012, more cases are being dealt with by the police without arresting the suspect, which may have created a gap in police practice that my noble friend’s amendment identifies. In order to give this issue appropriate consideration, I would like to take it away and consider it further before Report.

The second limb of my noble friend’s amendment would require that the written notice and any other record used the phrase “lack of evidence”, rather than the customary “insufficient evidence” used at present. It may assist the Committee if I remind noble Lords of the evidential test required by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Paragraph 4.4 of the code states:

“Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be”.

The absence of “sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” could easily be characterised as a “lack of evidence” or as the presence of “insufficient evidence”. We could debate for some time the precise difference between the two phrases, which must be very small.

Noble Lords have said that there has been some comment in the media, in the light of recent high-profile cases, that the dropping of cases due to “insufficient evidence” could leave an outside observer thinking that there must have been something there. This reflects the reality of policing: that there has to be sufficient evidence to justify an arrest—that is, reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. However, the investigative process in such cases will often end up with insufficient evidence, or, to use my noble friend’s phrase, a “lack of evidence”, that could still mean there was some evidence, but not sufficient to charge.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The current version, dating from January 2013, is the seventh edition of the code, and every version since 1986 has stated essentially the same requirement for,

“sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.

I say to my noble friend and other noble Lords that “insufficient evidence” seems to reflect the wording of the code test rather better and that it is the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service that the current phrasing has been used for more than 30 years and works well in practice.

While I recognise that the amendment would not change the test itself, to change the way that decisions made under the code are communicated, even to the small degree proposed by my noble friend, could create confusion, as there would be a tendency to ask which test should now be applied and whether it means the same thing. It could also invite doubt in the minds of prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers and others as to the reliability of decisions made against different tests.

I also point out to noble Lords that there are two tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors that must be met before charges are brought. It is perfectly possible for there to be sufficient evidence to meet the first test, but for it none the less to be contrary to the public interest to charge, for example, where a case is to be disposed of out of court by way of a conditional caution.

While Clauses 65 and 66 set a requirement to notify a suspect that they will not be charged, that notice would need to be given in both scenarios; that is, where there was insufficient evidence and where the evidence was sufficient but charges were not in the public interest. However, under my noble friend’s amendment, a suspect would need to be told in all cases that they were not being charged due to a lack of evidence, even though there must be sufficient evidence to charge to get to the point of considering the public interest test.

I can say to my noble friend that the Government are sympathetic to his aim of giving greater certainty to those who are investigated but against whom charges are not brought. We are minded to achieve this by non-statutory means so that prosecutors retain the necessary flexibility in cases where a decision is taken on public interest grounds.

On the issue of written notification of a decision not to charge, the Government consider that Clauses 65 and 66 already require such notification in all cases where an arrest has taken place. However, I would like to give further consideration to the issue of those interviewed under caution without being arrested. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the precise wording of that notification is an issue best dealt with by non-statutory means and that, having heard my statement, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed with knowledge and experience far greater than mine. I was very gratified that there was so much support for what I had to say. I thank the Minister for what she said. She has gone a long way to accepting what I intend. I am happy to leave it to her to come back to us and tell us exactly what it is proposed to do.

The rather Socratic justification which she gave for the terminology is okay in esoteric circles, but we are concerned with what the people as a whole see, and we are back to the old cliché that justice must be seen to be done. When she says that the difference between my phrase and “insufficient evidence” is very small, I remind her that it was said that at one moment Christendom was divided by an iota.

Having said all that, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her sympathetic approach to what I have said, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is the information we have. I can ask them to clarify how they thought that 8 million people had received this information and write to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords who are taking part in the debate. I would not want information to be incorrect, but it is the information that I have.

[Lord Marlesford]

If my noble friend believes that the British Property Federation is so happy, why on 11 September did it say that it is necessary to put back the compliance date—not necessarily the date of bringing this into force, but the compliance date—until April 2016? It is a big outfit and it is pointing out that 4.4 million properties are involved.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I take my noble friend’s point. There have been other concerns about the timing, but as I laid out in my opening speech and as I will explain in my responses to noble Lords this evening, this is the right thing to do at this time.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell talked about rogue landlords and my description of rogue landlords. These regulations are intended to target those very few landlords who do not have a concern for tenants’ safety or security.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Marlesford and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

A key stakeholder is someone who has a stake or interest in the regulation or legislation at hand.

In going forward with the regulations, the Government provided £3.2 million in a one-off grant to help fire and rescue—

[Lord Marlesford]

Before my noble friend leaves that point, I was certainly not regarded as a key stakeholder—there is no reason why I should be—but I received from the CLA only this morning a link for me to be able to download the advisory note issued last Friday. It produced its new view when it received that advisory note last Friday, which makes the idea of bringing it into force with no period of grace obvious nonsense.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take my noble friend’s point: he is not a key stakeholder and he got it from someone who would be regarded as a key stakeholder. That includes local authorities, groups of landlords and managing agents. It is not long until 1 October, but the draft regulations were laid back in March, so people who have an interest in this—that is, stakeholders—knew that it was coming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly do so. I have just spotted that point and I will certainly write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Marlesford]

Following the very interesting, important and sensible point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, does the Minister not now realise that the courts or anyone else will not see three weeks as being a reasonable time for these regulations to be put into effect? The guidance states that there is no grace period. If anyone tried to impose a £5,000 penalty on day two, three or four, I would have thought that that would be seen as absurd in judicial review terms. Will she not take away and reconsider the implementation date? I certainly could not agree to the regulations going forward with an implementation date of 1 October. That is obviously nonsense. The Minister herself gave a lot of examples, referring particularly to the very limited number of stakeholders. One would like to know how many stakeholders there are. I very much doubt whether people have had advisory notices. I do not believe that anyone would regard dishing out advice last Friday, three weeks before the regulations come into force, as adequate. It clearly is not. It is bad government and basically bad administration by Whitehall, and I hope that the Minister does not defend it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are two points here. First, it is imperative to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who will not meet their obligations. Secondly, in the theoretical situation set out by my noble friend, if on day two—2 October—a landlord was in breach, that landlord would have 28 days to comply, so the date we are talking about is more like six weeks from now.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)]

The Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the contrary, “Not content”.