Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing this group of amendments, which concern the duty to remove those who are not detained, and their access to support because they would be otherwise destitute.

Clause 8 amends relevant legislation to provide support on the same basis as for those whose claims are declared inadmissible under Section 80A or 80B of the 2002 Act. My noble friend introduced her amendments in great detail. They would allow for appeals to be made on decisions around support. They would allow financial support to be provided where accommodation support is not needed. They would allow people awaiting decisions on accommodation support to be provided with interim accommodation. They make it clearer that if someone has not yet been removed from the UK, despite the duty from the Secretary of State to do so, they face a genuine obstacle. As my noble friend said, the Government must ensure that no one awaiting deportation faces destitution and danger.

Given the questions about the Government’s ability to actually remove people given the lack of returns agreements, what assessment have the Government made of the support that will be needed? We read in the newspapers that the Government are renting two more barges. Of course, the numbers the barges can accommodate will not touch the sides of the amount of accommodation that will be needed.

My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord German, asked a number of detailed questions, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who I suspect is getting his train as we speak. As the right reverend Prelate said, in practice it will be local authorities, faith groups and voluntary organisations which will be picking up the pieces if there is not adequate government support for people who find themselves in this position. I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 8 ensures that there is support available to individuals who would otherwise be destitute where their asylum claims have been declared inadmissible, pending their removal from the United Kingdom. It also seeks to incentivise those whose asylum claims have been declared inadmissible to comply with the arrangements to remove them from the UK, whether that be to their country of origin—where it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country. These provisions will support the overall objective of the Bill and ensure that those who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Pending their removal, we will ensure that we support those who are complying with arrangements for removal. I make no apology for introducing these measures to protect and preserve the integrity of our asylum and migration system.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for setting out her amendments to Clause 8. Amendments 57C and 57F seek to create a right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for support under Section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which would take effect only if supporting provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 are brought into force. The Government keep these matters under review but I can answer the noble Baroness’s question directly: there are no current plans to bring those measures into force, and so we consider these amendments unnecessary. Therefore, those who are refused support under Section 4 of the 1999 Act will still be able to appeal the decision.

Similarly, we do not consider Amendment 57D necessary. As I have told noble Lords frequently throughout Committee, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove people. We expect that the overwhelming majority of those who fall within the scope of the duty to remove will need accommodation as well as financial support. These individuals will therefore be provided with financial support to meet their essential living needs, pending their removal from the UK.

Although I recognise the intention behind Amendment 57E, the Government do not consider it necessary to provide a statutory basis on which to provide temporary support. As I have said, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove those who enter illegally and meet the conditions in Clause 2. The details of how the scheme will work in practice, including the support provided during this interim period, are currently under active consideration. We are confident that there is sufficient scope to be able to provide adequate support to individuals pending a determination of their application under Section 4 of the 1999 Act. Obviously, we will bear in mind the contributions made during this short debate.

Finally, Amendment 57G seeks to amend uncommenced provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 and, in so doing, alter the long-standing position that Section 4 support would be available only to people who face a genuine obstacle in leaving the UK. The Government have no plans to implement the 2016 Act provisions in the immediate future; even if we were to do so, we see no need to alter the existing approach to eligibility under Section 4 for this group of people. Eligibility for Section 4 support is a long-standing position. As long as individuals whom we support pending their removal co-operate with the process, they will remain eligible for support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the train-bound right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked about the Section 4 application form. We are working on the arrangements for implementing these provisions. As part of that, we will consider what changes, if any, are required to the Section 4 application form.

Where necessary, the Government will provide accommodation and basic support for those who are subject to the duty to make arrangements for removal and who are not being detained pending their removal. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, I can assure him that, with the changes made by Clause 8, we consider that there is sufficient legislative cover to provide such support where a person would otherwise be left destitute. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment, at its heart, is about the Government’s proposal to exempt housing for asylum seekers from licensing conditions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined the two principal areas of concern, which have been the thread throughout this short debate. One is the conditions of the accommodation and the second is the impact on the rented housing sector in its entirety. I would add that the limited number of properties that are available in the private rented sector is in danger of impacting seriously on the number of houses for people who are looking for that accommodation but are not asylum seekers.

I will ask the Minister as well about the devolved responsibilities in this area, because the private rented sector in Wales is quite differently managed under Welsh Parliament legislation. I would like to understand whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations to find out how they propose to deal with this matter. In the case of Wales, all private rented sector accommodation is required to be licensed, not just HMOs. There is a strict regime and landlords pay for that licence. Clearly, that has had some impact on raising standards. That is an important issue, and if it is going to be reduced further, the Government need to explain why.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that there is a better way forward, and mentioned the need for a more collaborative, non-regulatory approach. My noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out that licensing provides protections, and I think we all understand that. He illustrated it by talking about smoke and CO₂ alarms. The reduction in standards is implicit in the proposals that are contained in the statutory instrument. It seems to me that we need to have a proper inspection regime, as stated by my noble friend Lord Scriven. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of the safety of people being at risk. That is at the heart of all this. Are we going to put the safety of this vulnerable group of people at risk by returning to the original situation before the HMO legislation came into place? Are we going to manage the contractors properly and correctly? Clearly, the process of creating unsafe homes is not in anybody’s interest in this country at all, and neither is placing people within them.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for moving this amendment. It was a good idea to address this issue in this context, even though it was fully addressed when the SI was debated. The Labour Party voted against the SI in the House of Commons, but it was not pushed to a vote in this House. Nevertheless, this is an appropriate Bill for us to address the issue again.

As we have heard, the regulations for HMOs were brought in following a fire in Notting Hill in which eight people died and almost 100 people lost their homes and possessions. Almost six years after that came the catastrophic fire in Grenfell Tower. These DLUHC regulations could lead to another fatal fire in an HMO used to accommodate people seeking asylum or other people in housing need. As we have heard from the briefings that we have all received—particularly the Shelter briefing, which was a particularly full briefing —people seeking asylum can be particularly vulnerable to fire risks, due to disabilities and health problems, being unaware of what standards to expect in a new country, being unable to read or speak England, and perhaps being reluctant, or less able, to complain to the authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this has been another interesting debate in which there has been one side only, and we face a series of debates where we are looking at fact versus forecasting. All of the speakers who have entered this debate in this short and very narrow area of work have been clear about the issues, which are evidenced—the health and well-being of pregnant women, the effect on unborn children, the dangers of restraint, which have been very well explained.

We are in exactly the same position as we were on the last group. We are asked to make a decision in this Committee based on unevidenced forecasting—in fact, we heard the Minister say earlier that he cannot be expected to look into a crystal ball. That is exactly what the Government are doing here, against all the evidence.

If you think about the number of organisations that have been referred to in this short debate, we are not talking about a small, narrow area of influence; we are talking about huge numbers of organisations representing women throughout this country, human rights and every other sphere you can imagine, believing that this is the wrong way to go. It is the wrong way because we do not have any evidence that it will do the job the Government want it to do.

The Government should stop their crystal ball-gazing to which they directed our attention earlier and concentrate on the evidence they have given. If they cannot provide the evidence themselves, listen to the evidence of the world around us.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the major items in the Bill is the extension of the 72-hour detention of pregnant women. Research carried out in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 found women in detention there often missed antenatal appointments, had no ultrasound and did not have direct access to a midwife.

In a government-commissioned review of immigration detention in 2016, Sir Stephen Shaw stated that

“detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn child and I take this to be a statement of the obvious”.

That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. It was after this that the 72-hour rule was implemented. It was done for a reason, and to undo it would put women and unborn children at risk of serious harm. The actual number of pregnant women in detention is low. There were nine in 2022, so I would argue—and so, I believe, would other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—that we are talking about a low number of children. The Government’s argument that somehow, the amendments would provide an incentive are difficult to understand.

However, to the women themselves, who are pregnant, it makes a huge difference. That is accepted by experts and by every lobby group that has written to noble Lords regarding this narrow amendment.

If I was to give a prize for the best speech of this group I would give it to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. Her speech was very cogent and well argued. On the other hand, the prize for the most impactful speech would go to my noble friend Lady Lister, who gave a powerful and angry speech. She was also very angry that we are having this debate at this time of the morning. I hope that the Minister will hear the unanimity of view that has been expressed by all noble Lords taking part in this short debate.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, this group deals with the detention of pregnant women and the use of reasonable force to effect the detention and removal of children and pregnant women.

Amendments 68 and 76A deal with the detention of pregnant women. Before getting into the specifics, it is worth briefly reiterating some general points made by my noble friend Lord Murray when he responded to the previous group. Our aim is to ensure that no one is held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal from the United Kingdom. The scheme is designed to be operated quickly and fairly, but holding people in detention is necessary to ensure that they are successfully removed under the scheme. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of all illegal entrants, save unaccompanied children, back to their home country or to a safe third country will, we calculate, send a clear message that vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, cannot be exploited by the people smugglers facilitating their passage across the channel in small boats on the false promise of starting a new life in the United Kingdom. The only way to come to the United Kingdom for protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take power out of the hands of the criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people.

I am happy to repeat for the benefit of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Sugg that we must not create incentives for people-smuggling gangs to target pregnant women or provide opportunities for people to exploit any loopholes. I assure the Committee that pregnant women who have arrived illegally will not be removed from the United Kingdom when, based on medical assessments, they are not fit to travel. I offer that assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Electronic Passport Control Systems

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The Home Office is not responsible for security facilities at the airports beyond those provided by Border Force. I reassure her that Border Force takes seriously maintaining the operation of the e-gates during peak periods. As I have said, we have certainly learned lessons from what happened last week.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that 95.9% of travellers go through the e-gate system within the published wait times. What is the position during half terms, when people are travelling with children and there are many more people travelling? Are extra staff put on during half terms?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not have those statistics to hand—I will of course find them and write to the noble Lord in respect of them—but, as your Lordships will recall, there was an SI approved by this House to lower the age at which children could use e-gates from 12 to 10. I am pleased to report that the pilot was incredibly effective and that it will now be rolled out across the e-gates by the end of July, so 10 year-olds across the country will be able to use them. This will increase the flow through airports, particularly during peak periods of half term and holidays.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the proposed amendments are to cover the technical situation where somebody who is not necessarily a citizen or a national happens to hold an identity document of that country, and therefore—almost by definition, but certainly by strong presumption—is clearly someone who has a close relationship with that country. Assuming it is a safe country and that there are no other circumstances that might create an exception, that is a place to which they should normally be returned. If, as I think the question is posing, there are real risks in sending that person back to a particular country, the procedures in the Bill kick in. That would be a question of fact in each case.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the government amendments. I have two questions. First, what would be the status of people who have no passport: stateless people? Of course, there are stateless people in refugee camps. There are, perhaps preponderantly in refugee camps but also elsewhere, people who have no recognised state.

Secondly, it so happens that I was in the West Bank in Palestine last week. Palestinians who live in the West Bank are entitled to a Jordanian passport. They are not entitled to an Israeli passport, but they have an identity document as Palestinians in the West Bank. That is a different category from the category of people who are completely stateless. I am wondering whether the Minister could explain how these two particular examples might be accommodated within these government amendments.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I will, if I may, look into the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and give a more precise answer. I think, just as an initial answer, we are essentially dealing with nationals of a country listed in proposed new Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which is to be added by this Bill. They are EU and EEA countries, together with Albania and Switzerland. It is to those countries that this applies. The provisions I referred to relate to EU countries, EEA countries, Albania and Switzerland, and I do not think that they touch at all on the situation of stateless persons in particular, or those who hold a Jordanian but not an Israeli passport, et cetera.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, granting re-entry to the asylum system for those whom the Secretary of State is unable to remove is thus a pragmatic measure that would go some way in ensuring we do not disqualify all individuals from claiming asylum. It would bring us closer in line with the basic rationale of the refugee convention. It does not completely overturn that which the other place has sent to us, but neither does it leave us, nor the people to whom it is directed, with insoluble problems.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this group focuses on the disregarding of protection claims, trafficking claims, human rights claims and judicial review, as outlined first in Clause 4. This is quite a large group, with different strategies to remove or edit Clause 4 to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to declare human rights claims and other claims inadmissible if the person arrives into the UK illegally.

My noble friend Lord Dubs has tabled Amendment 23, which would mean that a protection or human rights claim must be considered if the person has not been removed within six months. In his very eloquent speech he said that it would have the effect of trying to reduce the number of people who are effectively in a permanent limbo—he gave the figure of 160,000 who are stuck in this status. As he said, the amendment goes a little way to ameliorating this position. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry supports my noble friend.

My other noble friend Lord Hunt’s series of amendments beginning with Amendment 19A would ensure that potential and recognised victims of trafficking would not be removed before they got the opportunity to submit an application to the national referral mechanism and have it considered. His amendments would remove trafficking from the list of claims that the Secretary of State can ignore, so although they would help trafficking victims, they would not help others making claims under different legislation, which would remain on the list. In my noble friend’s speech he referred to the Liberty brief, which I also found extremely helpful, and to the statistics there about the increase in the NRM claims we have seen over recent years, to which the Home Office makes particular reference. My noble friend made the point that the Bill as currently drafted would dissuade victims of modern slavery from coming forward.

As a youth magistrate, I very much recognise the point about the modern slavery system and the national referral system getting completely overwhelmed by the number of referrals into that method of checking for modern slavery. Certainly, in my experience as a youth magistrate, it almost logjammed the system of reviewing what I might call normal criminal cases referred into the NRM, which were sometimes stuck in that system for literally one or two years.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, gave a couple of very appropriate anecdotes. He did not particularly explain the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, but, as he said, they were fully explained by the noble and learned Lord himself. I think the central point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was making was that the people who find themselves making appeals are not an unworthy cohort. They very often win their claims, so surely we should be reinforcing and backing up the systems we have signed up to in international law for protecting claims of legitimate claimants.

I think all other noble Lords supported my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendments; in fact, most noble Lords supported all the amendments in this group. I just want to make a particular aside to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who also supported my noble friend Lord Hunt. As he will know, he facilitated a trip for me to Ballymena district court, where I sat in on a youth court. I found it very interesting that the Modern Slavery Act has not been enacted in Northern Ireland. I have tried to get an explanation for that but, as far as I know, I have not received one. Although I am sure that the noble Lord supports the Modern Slavery Act, I find it surprising that the Act has not been enacted for young people in Northern Ireland.

As I said, I think all noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments have supported them. In many ways they go to the heart of the Bill, because it is where the Government are seeking to step away from some of the commitments they have made in a number of treaties and in a number of different forums over many decades. It is for the Government to justify why they should take such a radical step.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 4 provides that if a person meets any of the four conditions set out in Clause 2, regardless of any claim made by an individual, including a protection claim, a human rights claim against their country of nationality or citizenship, a claim as a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, or an application for judicial review in relation to their removal, they will still fall under the duty to remove.

As such, if a protection or human rights claim is made, this will be declared as inadmissible. Inadmissibility is a long-standing process and is explicitly provided for in UK law, most recently in the strengthened provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act. So although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was praising the innovation of the Home Office, the concept of inadmissibility is indeed a long-standing one that appeared in immigration legislation from the turn of the millennium.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, correctly identified, Clause 4 is critical to the Bill. By expanding the scope of existing inadmissibility provisions to apply to anyone who has arrived illegally to the UK, the Government’s intention is made clear: namely, that those who fear persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and not put their lives at risk by making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK.

We know that some people make spurious claims in a conscious attempt to frustrate their removal. Provisions in Clause 4 will restrict the right to challenge the decision to remove those who enter the UK illegally. In doing so, it will put a stop to the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges that those with no right to be here use to thwart their removal. In 2022 there were 60% more small boat arrivals—45,755—than in 2021, when there were 28,526. Our asylum system is consequently under significant pressure, and with this inexorable rise in the number of illegal arrivals adding more pressures to our health, housing, educational and welfare services, the Government must take action and prioritise support for those who are most in need.

We remain committed to working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those who are most in need so that the UK remains a safe haven for the most vulnerable. Once illegal migration is under control, we will create more safe and legal routes following consultation with local authorities, and that will be subject to an annual cap set by Parliament—we will come on to debate those provisions later in Committee.

The Bill will send an unequivocal message that if you come to the UK on a small boat or via another illegal route, you will never be able to return to the UK or build a life here. It is only right that we prioritise people who come here safely and legally, and it is unfair that those who enter illegally should benefit over those who play by the rules. If people know that there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to get here.

Having set out the purpose of Clause 4, I turn to the specific amendments. First, Amendment 19A and the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, effectively seek to exclude all potential victims of modern slavery from the duty to remove and the associated detention powers until a conclusive grounds decision has been made following a referral to the national referral mechanism, or NRM.

There is no escaping that, regrettably, the NRM affords opportunities for those who enter the UK unlawfully to frustrate their removal. In 2022, there were around 17,000 referrals to the NRM—the highest annual number to date and a 33% increase on 2021, when there were 12,706, and a 625% increase on 2014, when there were 2,337. The average time taken from referral to conclusive grounds decisions made in 2022 across the competent authorities was 543 days. Given these decision times, it is self-evident that, were the noble Lord’s amendments to be made, the intentions of this Bill—namely, to deter illegal entry and to allow for the swift removal of those who do enter illegally—would be undermined.

Immigration (Electronic Travel Authorisations) (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for reintroducing this issue to the Chamber. I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. I hear from members how concerned they are about the effect that this could have on their industry, when it is just recovering from Covid.

As we have heard, 70% of tourism to Northern Ireland comes from the Republic of Ireland. Can the Minister tell us, not just the details of the impact assessment but whether he is aware of how many of the visitors to Northern Ireland from the Republic simply make day trips and how he feels those trips might affected by the introduction of the ETA? Can he also tell the House what the cost of the ETA will be, and what it will cost to operate? Has that been taken account of? I have been brief, but I would like answers to my questions.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I am happy to agree with everything that has been said in this debate. I agree with the way the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, opened her speech by saying that my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked a lot of pertinent questions and proposed some interesting solutions and that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, from a different perspective, also asked pertinent questions. One particularly interesting question from the noble Lord was about any reciprocal arrangements which may have been discussed with the EU regarding this set of circumstances. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those points.

It is worth pointing out that, in the other place, a prayer was laid by colleagues, which received signatures from Members of various Northern Ireland parties on this matter—so there is considerable interest in this.

The Government have stated they have held back the economic assessment of the regulations until the fee for the ETA is confirmed. An economic assessment has been drafted, but not released. The Minister stated to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the assessment, if released now, would be a much less useful document without the fee information. However, although the fee is an important part of the economic impact, it does not represent all of it. The fact that the assessment has been drafted demonstrates that there is a lot of substance in it, even without that particular number, to make calculations on the economic impact itself.

The issues raised in the Motion represent wider economic concerns about the consequences of the introduction of the ETA for the tourism industry in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, 70% of all visitors arriving in Northern Ireland arrive through Dublin. I was interested in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about how many people make day trips from Dublin, or the surrounding area, to visit various places in Northern Ireland. I was also particularly taken by my noble friend’s suggestion of a five- to seven-day exemption, which may meet the vast bulk of those tourists’ needs. I am interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that proposal.

I understand that a series of regulations will be put in place before the ETA system is introduced, but, as it stands, there is no set date for the introduction of the ETA, no set fees for the ETA, and no impact assessment from the Government on this aspect of it. As we have heard, this puts the travel industry in Northern Ireland, and related industries, at a disadvantage. We have also heard, from my noble friend, about how important tourism is, how it is perhaps the least controversial of any activity in Northern Ireland, and that it needs to be encouraged.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions raised in this brief debate. It is an important issue to raise, and I commend my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her tenacity in doing so.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this is a straightforward piece of secondary legislation, adding the Royal Military Police, the Royal Air Force Police and the Royal Navy Police to the list of people who can exercise extraction of information powers under Section 41 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

First, I declare what may be a tangential interest: I have a son-in-law who flies jets for the RAF. I would never have thought about it, but it is possible that his and my family would be affected if Section 41 powers were to be used in the event of his untimely death, if that were to happen.

I have two questions to ask the Minister. They relate to the guidance in the extraction of information code of practice, which was provided in relation to the Act and as a result of the words of the Information Commissioner, who believed that this was necessary. I am pleased that it is provided.

My first question relates to paragraph 69 of the guidance, which talks about the use of a mobile phone device “around the time of” the death of the person concerned. It uses the words “the user”. Earlier, in relation to Section 37 of the Act, the code of practice talks about where people are not necessarily the owner of the phone or mobile device. It distinguishes clearly people who own a phone from people who have a phone which is owned by somebody else—something we parliamentarians know because we have a parliamentarian phone that is not our property but is used for all sorts of communication, as well as for the business of Parliament. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer yet, but could there be some clarification of paragraph 69 that refers back to the earlier information given in the code of practice to say exactly what it means about a shared-user phone?

My second question is about paragraph 90 of the code and current practice among police forces to keep up to date with technology in order to separate personal information from necessary information related to the event being investigated—the death, criminal event or whatever. Does the Minister have any information about whether police forces of all sorts are using similar technology? The real problem, which is quite obvious, is that there is a variety of technological options available to police forces and they may all be using different ones. That means that they may not necessarily be able to do what is required in the code of practice and keep up to date with

“the technology options available in their organisations”.

There may be a question here—again, the Minister may not be able to answer it now—about whether the technology available to police forces is of sufficient robustness to allow them to be ahead of the game and whether there is one piece of software that is recommended for police forces to use.

With those two questions, I am perfectly satisfied that this is a sensible piece of legislation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am happy to say that this is a straightforward statutory instrument, and we are happy to support it from the Labour Party’s point of view. The SI adds members of the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police to those given the power to extract information from a device after a user of that device has died, as part of an investigation or inquest into the death, to investigate crime and to safeguard others.

I think it is fair to ask the Minister why these police forces were left out of the original Bill. Was there a particular reason, or was the consultation process not complete?

The Labour Party tabled a series of amendments to the PCSC Bill creating new checks on police powers to extract data from electronic devices. This was due to concerns about vulnerable people and the intrusive nature of these searches—in particular, for rape and sexual abuse victims, who can feel that requests for information, including digital information taken from their phone, can be overly invasive and collect highly personal information that is not relevant to the inquiry. It may make people more reluctant to come forward to the police if they know that they will get this interrogation of their phones.

I understand that this SI covers something different—cases in which the owner of the device has died—and we are happy to support this amendment. However, I would still like to ask the Minister what assurance he can give about how devices and information taken from them will be handled sensitively so as not to discourage potential victims and witnesses from coming forward.

There have also been serious concerns about digital resources and the use of digital information by the police, outlined in the report last year from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Can the Minister give any update on what action is being taken and whether any specific concerns have been raised about the use of digital items by the forces being given additional powers today? That is a more general question; the two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, are very pertinent, so I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on shared-user phones and what impact the measure would have on them, as well as on the interoperability of different technologies and different police forces, as I am sure that that will be a tripping block. I am sure that it is not the intention to create any problems but it is always difficult, in my experience, to get different sources of technology to work together in a seamless way. That seems to be a challenge facing businesses, police forces and everybody battling with new digital technologies. However, overall, we support this SI.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate. I shall address all the questions asked of me shortly. Before I do that, I make the general point that the introduction of extraction of information powers in the 2022 Act and its code of practice are just the start of changes being made to improve the experiences of victims involved in the criminal justice system. These specific powers were introduced to ensure that victims and witnesses who report crime can be confident that their personal information will be handled appropriately and that their privacy rights will be respected.

As has been discussed, the amendment relates to the extraction of information from electronic devices when the device user is deceased, so some of the issues debated during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill are not available there.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked why it was not introduced with regard to these police forces in the original iteration. As I said in my opening remarks, at the time it was not agreed that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police had a sufficient investigative requirement to use Section 41 powers or that their investigative needs could not be met with other existing powers. We have now taken the time thoroughly to consider their case and are in agreement with those police forces that their investigative duties meet the requirements for the use of the powers. In short, it is about ensuring that giving those police forces those powers is indeed the proportionate and correct thing to do, which is why it has taken a little bit of time.

On some of the more technical questions asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord German, there is a broader debate here about whether extraction of information from a personal device is always necessary, given the risks to privacy. Of course, there is a balance to be struck, which must be achieved when undertaking any investigation. All reasonable lines of inquiry must be followed to guarantee a fair trial with the right to privacy. As I said in my opening remarks, it is vital that victims and witnesses feel confident to come forward, but it is equally important that police and other agencies have access to the evidence that they need—I accept that there is no disagreement about this—including mobile data, to fully investigate crime and guarantee a fair trial.

Where information is being extracted from a deceased person’s device, the authorised person must have reasonable belief that the information on that device is relevant to an investigation or inquest into that person’s death, and be satisfied that extracting the information is necessary and proportionate. In answer to the specific question about “the device”—whether it is the owner’s own or one that just happens to be in use—I think it is any device that happens to be in the deceased’s possession. If I am wrong on that, I will of course come back and clarify. By the way, I sincerely hope that it is never a personal matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but the acronym RASSO stands for rape and serious sexual offences.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord very much for that.

On the progress being made on recommendation 5 of the HMICFRS report, which relates to budgets and the funding of digital forensics, we have also set up a commissioning board, jointly led by policing and the Home Office, to enable joint decision-making around prioritisation and to increase the transparency of funding decisions, including those in digital forensics, in line with that recommendation. In addition, we are investing £11 million into providing forces with technology that will enhance their capability to carry out rape investigations quickly and to provide a better service to victims.

I thank noble Lords very much for their questions. I hope I have answered them; I think I have. In closing, I repeat my thanks for the time taken to discuss and consider these issues. I once again commend the regulations to the Committee.

Licensing Act 2003 (Liaison Committee Report)

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on her report. Many of my questions will echo those she set out in opening this short debate. I do not really have any interests to declare, other than that I served on the licensing committee of a local authority many years ago and that I sit, and have in the past heard licensing appeals, as a magistrate, although that is a very rare occurrence. Nevertheless, I recognise the expertise demonstrated in this short debate.

Clearly, the inquiry did not focus on the impact of Covid-19 on licensing, but it is fair to say that its impact on our hospitality sector and licensed premises has been profound. The adaptions that were made to ensure people could enjoy licensed entertainment safely during the pandemic have acted as a reminder of the importance of this sector to our everyday lives. It is also important that we get things right in minimising alcohol-related harms while supporting a vibrant night-time economy.

It is clear from this report and the government response that we still have some way to go. Ensuring that our licensing and planning systems work well together despite what the Government describe as differing objectives seems to be something that should be worked on further; this should include effective local authority training on licensing that improves outcomes. Training for police officers on licensing and issues impacting the night-time economy has also been welcomed by the Government, who must play their role in ensuring that this training package is introduced as soon as possible and regularly reviewed to ensure that it complies with regulations.

The Government stated in their response to the report that they were establishing a national working group to bring together policing and licensing partners with a focus on police-led interventions to reduce alcohol-related offending. What progress has been made on setting up this working group?

The report also highlights clear shortcomings in equality of access to licensed premises. The Government have noted the legal routes available when premises do not comply with equalities law. It also points out that the EHRC has a role in monitoring how the Act is being complied with in particular sectors and can take action where it is considered necessary. Does the Minister feel that cultural change needs to be encouraged—by this, I mean greater acceptance and encouragement of people with disabilities attending licensed premises? If so, how will the Government work to support bringing about such change to ensure that, rather than taking action against premises that do not comply, we are encouraging premises to comply because it would be in their own interests?

The report mentions the late-night levy and issues with its current application. The Government recently consulted on the late-night levy with the consultation period ending around six weeks ago. Do they yet have a timetable for their response?

Finally, the Government did not provide a full response to the committee’s recommendations on a national database of personal licence holders. Has there been any progress on this since the Government’s response was published in November? The report covers a large number of issues within licensing and our night-time economy, not all of which I have covered.

Although most people drink alcohol in a sensible, responsible way, it is clear that there are persistent problems with the way some people behave because they drink too much. We hope that by implementing these small changes this harm can be minimised. I conclude by endorsing the sentiments laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Hindhead, about managing alcohol because the vast majority of people enjoy a drink and going out with friends and it is very much a cornerstone of the way many people live their lives. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity which I hope the Government will fully embrace when implementing these changes.

Vagrancy Act 1824

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot specifically answer as regards all prison leavers. I know that a lot of work is being done with the rehabilitation of drug addicts in an effort to prevent recidivism. I will come back to the right reverend Prelate with more detail, if I can find it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the 1824 Act makes reference to “idle and disorderly” persons, “rogues and vagabonds”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is not a reference to Conservative Peers. The 2019 manifesto committed the party opposite to ending rough sleeping by 2024, yet it continues to rise. It is up by 74% in the last 10 years and may be up by a quarter in the last year. What do the Government intend to do to reverse this trend?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord is a magistrate. I will not comment on his first point, other to say that I am sure most of my colleagues would prefer not to appear in front of him. The statistics he gives are not quite as bad as he made them sound. The numbers are much lower than when homelessness peaked in 2017. Although there was a slight spike last year, they are significantly below previous peak levels.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, of course, I echo the concern that has been expressed in the speeches so far about international corruption on an enormous scale.

In our debates, we have very much focused on what happens here in the United Kingdom. In our attack on the Government, it is worth bearing in mind that, in 2016, this Government hosted an international corruption summit; it was hosted by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, so many Prime Ministers ago. It was partly as a result of that that we had the then Criminal Finances Bill and there was an impetus—a very slow one, sadly—to set up a register of overseas entities. It was felt that, at least in this country, we should do all we could not to allow our properties and companies to be infected by corruption. Indeed, this Bill seeks to improve what has already been achieved although, in many ways, it has not gone far enough.

I respectfully submit that what is contained in this amendment is pretty aspirational stuff. There is nothing wrong with being aspirational. The International Criminal Court—I have been to conferences there—has had some success, but it must be remembered that Russia is not a party to the ICC and nor is the United States. It is one thing to say that it is relatively easy to set up a court, but you must have the proper means to enforce it and you have to invest huge sums of money in infrastructure. There has to be a degree of realism about this. Surely we should sort out matters at home as best we can first of all; that in itself will contribute to reducing international corruption. Putting on the statute book an obligation to set up an international court of this sort, which is what this amendment suggests, is premature at this stage, although one can do nothing but applaud the sentiments that lie behind it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate; it is the first debate in which we have spoken on a more international level. As we heard in our earlier debates, a large proportion of the quantity of money involved in fraud—well over 90%; probably 99%—has an international element; that is at the core of so much of the fraud with which we are dealing.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on the way in which he introduced this group. I found his introduction rich and compelling. He set out things very fully. The other noble Lords who have spoken have talked about the aspirational nature of this amendment. I do not think that that is a criticism. It is good to hear about the other countries that are already taking a lead in trying to get the IACC set up.

From the Labour Party’s point of view, I have looked at what David Lammy has said on this matter. He has spoken about working internationally—I know that my noble friend Lord Hain led the work on that when he was a Foreign Office Minister—and promised that an incoming Labour Government would fight against dirty money in the UK by creating a transatlantic anti-corruption council alongside the US, EU and other allies. That is a different model from the one proposed in these amendments.

I do not want to stand here as an opposition spokesman saying that we are against what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, are proposing but there are other potential models for bearing down on corruption. I listened with some interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about the practicalities of doing this and using legislation such as this to do everything we can on a domestic level, and internationally where we already have direct interest, to bear down on this huge level of corruption. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their amendments in this group. I also thank all noble Lords for speaking in this debate.

I turn first to Amendment 103, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. If I may, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: the noble Lord, Lord Oates, made an incredibly powerful and eloquent case in moving this amendment 103, which also spoken to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Wheatcroft. Ensuring that those who are responsible for the most egregious acts of corruption are held to account is obviously vital. There should be no tolerance towards those who steal from the public to satisfy personal greed. The Government wholeheartedly endorse the premise that this amendment seeks to advance. The international community can and must do more to deter and punish acts of corruption.

The Government are taking robust action to ensure that the UK leads by example. That is why, in March, we published the second public-private economic crime plan, to which I referred in our debate on the previous group of amendments, which outlines ambitious actions to prevent the UK’s open economy being exploited by criminals and corrupt actors. The Government are also developing a new UK anti-corruption strategy to build on the progress made by the previous strategy and outline a refreshed approach to tackling corruption and illicit finance both in the UK and internationally.

The recently published fraud strategy also sets out the Government’s commitment to raise the priority of fraud on the international stage. We will drive forward global action through developing stronger relationships with international partners, culminating in a global fraud summit chaired by the Home Secretary and held in the UK next year. The summit will bring together leaders from Governments, law enforcement and the private sector to announce the ambition to deliver a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to tackling fraud over the next five years.

The Government have consistently invested in efforts to bring those responsible for corruption to justice. The international corruption unit in the National Crime Agency is a specialist capability that investigates corruption cases with UK links.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few brief words in support of this amendment and place it in its proper legal context. When it was mentioned at Second Reading, the Government’s response was simply to say that the principle that the loser pays the costs of unsuccessful litigation or an unsuccessful application was regarded as a valuable principle and that they did not see sufficient reason to move away from it in this field. It is a salutary principle and it operates in civil litigation for the most part, but there are exceptions. There are already statutory precedents for a regime of the type that this amendment seeks to create, namely a regime in which the enforcement agency will not invariably have to pay the costs if an application is unsuccessful.

I will say a few words about a different, but quite closely related, area of law in which a regime of the type that this amendment contemplates has been created by the judges. In the field of professional discipline and professional regulation, there has been for some time a well-established principle that the regulator will not automatically have to pay costs merely because the application or prosecution that it has commenced has proved to be unsuccessful. It is known as the Baxendale-Walker principle and works perfectly well in practice.

I shall explain shortly how it works in practice. The proceedings are initiated and the respondent, being a professional person, is expected to engage properly and conscientiously with the regulator and to respond candidly, or with a reasonable degree of candour, to the points being made against him or it. If the regulator then continues unreasonably with the prosecution or disciplinary action and fails, it will be made to pay the costs of the matter. However, if the regulator at all times acts reasonably, the presumption will be that it will not be made to pay the costs of the matter.

The reason why the law has created that regime is precisely the reason that is contemplated by this amendment—namely, that it is strongly in the public interest that regulators and enforcement agencies should not be deterred from bringing proper proceedings by the risk of paying exorbitant costs bills to respondents who manage to successfully resist the application in question.

I think I have said enough to convey the point. I really do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to consider introducing a regime of this sort more widely across the field of economic crime. It already exists in relation to certain types of economic crime, and it works well in the field that I have mentioned. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said when he introduced it, cost exposure for prosecuting authorities can pose a real hurdle to their pursuing those prosecutions. As he also said, the Rubicon has been crossed in allowing cost capping, which the Government did in March 2022. This amendment has real legs—if I can use that phrase—and I hope the noble Lord presses the matter further, perhaps at later stages of the Bill.

I too was at the briefing with Bill Browder. I am currently reading his second book, having read his first, and it is compelling reading. He is a very brave man. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I think she said: the precedent and the need are there, and the solution is here. I agree with those sentiments.

Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, who set out, interestingly, that some judges in the civil courts have developed their own law on this matter regarding the enforcement agencies not necessarily having to bear all their costs. He gave an interesting example of a further precedent, if you like. I too will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. The matter will be considered very carefully with regard to the later stages of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for tabling this amendment and all noble Lords for the points they have raised in this debate. Again, I reassure the Committee that the Government take economic crime very seriously and are taking the necessary steps to ensure that enforcement agencies can tackle illicit financial activities while upholding the fundamental principles that govern our entire civil justice system.

In civil legal proceedings the loser generally pays the legal costs of the winning party, as has been acknowledged. The “loser pays” principle is a fundamental pillar on which the whole basis of civil litigation operates. It helps to ensure that only stronger cases are brought and that the winning party is able to recover reasonable costs of vindicating their case, save for in exceptional circumstances, to ensure access to justice for individuals with very limited resources. While important, civil recovery proceedings brought by enforcement agencies are not so exceptional as to warrant undermining the “loser pays” principle.

Several noble Lords have raised with me, and during this debate, the changes made to the unexplained wealth order regime by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. These amended provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act—POCA—introduce “costs protection” for enforcement agencies in cases of UWOs, unless they act unreasonably. This aimed to remove barriers to the use of UWO powers by relevant law enforcement teams. This was done on the basis that they were exceptional and likely to be low in volume in comparison to other types of civil recovery and, furthermore, that the relevant cost rules would be positioned as a novel and unique proposal, thereby maintaining the overall integrity of the “loser pays” principle in all other civil recovery proceedings. In the last five years, agencies with civil recovery powers—the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, the Financial Conduct Authority and HM Revenue and Customs—have not paid any adverse costs for civil recovery proceedings.

There is also no guarantee that the introduction of further costs protection would lead to enforcement agencies pursuing more cases, as they report that each case must be assessed on its own merits considering numerous factors independent of costs liability, including gathering sufficient evidence to pursue a case and internal resourcing capability.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the Civil Procedure Rules, which guide the courts in procedural matters—I think this goes some way to answering the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates—

Police: Restoring Public Confidence

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate on the state of public confidence in the police. Of course, I agree with pretty much every word that he said. A number of noble Lords have spoken about his indefatigability, and of course I agree with that as well.

We are all familiar with high-profile cases of the Met’s failure to prevent murder and violent crimes being done, not just by the general public but from within their own ranks. This has been the most prominent and worrying time for the Metropolitan Police in recent times. Just last week, we heard that the Met Police may also be failing to identify serial killers, in the wake of the appalling case of Stephen Port. In an HMICFRS report, five key failings were identified: a lack of training, poor supervision, unacceptable record-keeping, confusing policies and inadequate intelligence procedures. How are the Government urgently supporting the Met to fix that in relation not only to the most serious crimes but more widely?

Numerous media reports have also appeared about the recruitment of unsuitable candidates who have been given jobs as police officers in the lead-up to the deadline that the Government set themselves to meet their recruitment target. The report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the Met highlighted the lack of experience left in the police service, saying:

“On paper, we have the highest number of police officers”,


but that they have lost experienced police officers in recent years so that

“while on paper there are officers on seats, the lack of experience is noticeable”.

The Government need to provide a clear timeline for a legislative framework of standards to ensure that, even at times of high recruitment, we are hiring not rotten apples but only the best candidates—and, of course, there should be clear guidelines and standards from the start of their career. Why is it that in England and Wales we still have no mandatory national standards on police vetting, misconduct and training? Do the Government have a timeline for producing mandatory national standards? This goes to the same point that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, talked about—the lamentable time that it can take to dismiss a police officer.

Delays in dealing with serious crime have also eroded public confidence; 90% of crimes are unsolved, victims are dropping out of the reporting process in their millions, and sexual offences are at record highs. How concerned is the Minister about this, and does he accept that this is an unsustainable situation which demands urgent action?

We also know the problems with police visibility and community engagement. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about the golden thread, as she termed it, of public consent in supporting our police forces so that they can solve crimes. On this side of the Committee, we believe that neighbourhood policing has been hollowed out, leaving people feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods. Restoring public confidence in this area will certainly mean increasing the number of bobbies on the beat, being a visible and reassuring presence in communities. Those bobbies would have genuine local knowledge and relationships to deal with lower-level crime effectively. Have the Government considered the merits of committing to a target for putting more PCSOs and police officers on the streets?

In commenting on some noble Lords’ speeches, which have all given great expertise to this short debate, I want to pick out two particular points. First, I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, but he spoke about “Dixon of Dock Green” and how it was when that TV programme was on. I watched that programme when I was a boy, but I was a boy in London. I was stopped more times than I can remember by the police force in Notting Hill. I suspect my experience of the police force 50 years ago was very different from the one displayed in “Dixon of Dock Green”, so we should not be too sentimental about the past.

Secondly, I want to pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about confidence in the police. Yesterday, I sat as a magistrate in the City of London Magistrates’ Court, dealing with the usual range of cases; there was nothing special yesterday. At lunchtime, I had a sandwich with a district judge friend of mine. He knew that I was going to take part in this debate. I asked him the one change he would make which would have the greatest benefit in building confidence in the police—one thing. He did not hesitate in his answer. He said, “Bring domestic abuse allegations to court the next day. Do it immediately. If you did that, you would get a far lower drop-out rate”. He is a travelling district judge and does DA work across the whole country. He has been absolutely appalled by the prevalence of this. Different parts of the country deal with it in different ways, but when I put that question to him he did not hesitate in his answer. He said he understood that it would be difficult, but that it would be the single thing that any Government could do to have the greatest impact.

I will tell the Minister, for nothing, that I will feed that idea into the Labour Party as a proposal for the manifesto and the like, but he is very welcome to take it forward himself. Other than that, I welcome this debate. It has shown great insight into the problems ahead of us. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for moving the debate.

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

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this new Draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to non-crime hate incidents has been created following the ruling of the Court of Appeal in 2021 in Miller v the College of Policing. The court found that the recording of non-crime hate incidents was lawful, but must be subject to more robust safeguards to ensure a better balance between responding to hate incidents and protecting freedom of speech. The Labour Party supports this revised code.

The code puts a lot of weight on using common sense, but I do not believe we should rely on that phrase too much to ensure its fair and uniform application at an operational level. What is common sense to an experienced officer may not be to a new recruit having to apply these rules for the first time. It also opens the code up to being abused. A number of noble Lords have talked about the importance of the education and training of officers.