Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I was recently reminded of the noble Lord’s words when I met one of the teachers involved with four pupils in Wakefield who, if noble Lords remember, slightly damaged a Koran in 2023. The police recorded an NCHI against them. Despite the school admitting that there was no malicious intention and one of the pupils was autistic, Inspector Thornton told concerned parents at the local mosque that the damage was being treated as a hate incident. Those young boys are now getting to an age when they will be applying for jobs. Does the Minister agree that it would be a travesty if the records of their NCHIs on the police database were used to stop them getting a foot on the work ladder? I just want to make sure that we do not forget that different type of victim.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests showing that I am the chair of the College of Policing. We are broadly in agreement about the way forward. There is a large measure of agreement that the current system of non-crime hate incidents is no longer fit for purpose. As the Minister said, under the new proposals in the final report into this matter that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have produced, which goes to the police chiefs’ council next week for ratification, non-crime hate incidents will no longer be recorded. They will go.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this will not be a mere rebranding exercise. The threshold of an incident will be significantly increased. Common-sense professional judgment will guide decisions and only where there is a genuine risk of harm and a clear policing purpose will incidents continue to be recorded. The powerful intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, reminds us of the importance of ensuring that, where there is a risk of harm, we must continue to record the incidents. That was the original reason why, as a result of the recommendation of the Macpherson review, this regime was put in place. However, for all the reasons we have discussed, it does not work properly and there is a better approach that will reduce police time.

So far, so good, and I can therefore agree with most of my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 387. The one problematic area is the requirement that all records must be deleted after three months. The policy on deletion is a matter for the Government, not for the College of Police or the National Police Chiefs’ Council, but the view of those bodies is that it would be disproportionately burdensome to go back and delete all the existing records.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

Just to be clear, one of the differences between the amendment as originally drafted and this new version is that the new version no longer asks the police to go through all their databases and delete all historic NCHIs. It just asks them to delete those they come across. So, if a person who thinks they have an NCHI recorded against them, like my noble friend, writes to the police, fires off an SAR and discovers they have an NCHI still recorded against their name—and it does not meet the new, higher recording threshold—the police will be obliged to delete it. The amendment does not ask the police to go through records. As my noble friend says, that would be too resource-intensive; all it asks is that, when they come across them, they delete them if they do not meet the new threshold.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

Okay; that is helpful. I thank my noble friend, and I am sure the Government will respond to that. But if part of the purpose of this is to ensure that it meets the concern my noble friend set out—that people may, to use his words, be prevented from getting a job because of the release of a non-crime hate incident in an enhanced DBS check—I should point out that the review has not been able to find a single example of a non-crime hate incident being disclosed in an extended DBS check and preventing someone from securing employment. We therefore think the risk of that is very low. The release is a matter for the chief constable’s discretion. Of course, the risk could be made even lower if the new, higher threshold were applied to any future decision, but again, that would be within the Government’s gift to agree. What is already a negligible risk could be made even more negligible, so that would address the concern.

The final question relates to whether non-crime hate incidents will spring back into life, to use my noble friend’s expression. My response is, not so long as I am involved with this, and I am sure I could say the same for the chief executive of the college, Sir Andy Marsh. The serious point, however, is that there clearly has been a change of mood, partly because of the way in which social media has influenced this whole matter. But such action is always within the gift of any future Government, as my noble friend conceded: no Government can bind themselves to changing practice and policy. What matters now is that we put in place a robust regime that works and ensure that the police are focused on the right things.

Therefore, I am very pleased we have this broad agreement about the way forward. I do not think my noble friend’s amendment is necessary, but it is for the Government to respond to that. We must be wary of tying up the police more on this, when we are trying to release their time. We must also be aware of the injunction of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence: that serious incidents must continue to be recorded. We must remember why this regime was set up in the first place. Not every recorded non-crime hate incident has been trivial; they can indicate a building pattern of behaviour and that is what we have to guard against. But the new system will put in place higher thresholds to ensure that the trivial are weeded out, and that, I think, is what we all want.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, given the hour I do not want to detain the House for much longer. In fact, I have deleted the first page of my speech accordingly, and I will address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, in a moment.

First, this amendment insists that all future incident recording guidance must have due regard to freedom of expression—and that matters. In a liberal democracy, the test is not whether we protect only speech we agree with; it is whether we protect the space for robust, sometimes uncomfortable, debate on race, religion, sex, gender, politics and many other issues.

Police guidance should start from the principle that lawful speech is not a policing problem. Further, it deals with the past as well as the future. It should require that historic non-crime hate incident records which do not meet the proper recording threshold must not be disclosed on DBS checks and must be deleted when discovered. That is vital for natural justice. If we accept that this category has been misused and overused, we cannot leave people’s lives quietly marred by data that should never have been held in the first place. I particularly address these remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence.

This is not about turning a blind eye to genuine hate crime. On the contrary, by scrapping a vague, perception-based non-crime category, we free up police time and attention to focus on real offences: threats, harassment, violence and criminal damage. We will make the system clearer for victims and for officers. We will be sending a simple message that if you have been the victim of a crime, the law is there to protect you, and if you have merely heard something you strongly dislike, that is not in itself a matter for the police.

At the moment, too many people are unsure where that line lies. They fear that expressing a lawful view on a controversial subject might bring a knock at the door or a mark on their record. That chilling effect is corrosive. It drives honest disagreement underground and pushes some people out of the public square altogether. We should be defending the right to argue and criticise, and to challenge within the law, not encouraging people to outsource every disagreement to the police.

The amendment would preserve the ability of the police to record information where it is genuinely necessary for crime prevention and public safety. It would hardwire respect for freedom of expression into any future guidance. In doing so, it would strengthen civil liberties and good policing. It says that the police are there to deal with crime, not to catalogue lawful opinions. This is a distinction worth defending and I urge the House to support this amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for the introduction of this amendment. It is a vast improvement on the amendment laid in the other place. We discussed it at Second Reading and in Committee, and it is great to see it on Report.

However much we might like to reconsider the wording of the Gender Recognition Act, the way in which we consider hate crime, and the Equality Act, that is not what this amendment does. We can talk about the GRA, we can talk about hate crime and we can talk about the Equality Act, but that is not what this is about. This is about extending to disability and LGBT people and sex aggravated offences that already exist for race and religion and belief. That was a recommendation made by the Law Commission in 2021, which feels like a different country was indeed only five years ago.

What aggravated offences do that is different from increased sentencing is very specific. First, it leads to stronger sentences and a higher maximum penalty. However, in order to do that, hostility must be proven as part of the offence itself and not just considered at sentencing, so you need significantly stronger evidence than you currently do. For those who are concerned about the lacklustre way in which people are accused of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, that will have to be put through a much more rigorous process to be tested before this kicks in. You also get a longer time to report because it is considered in the Crown Court, which gives victims more time to report and gives the police more time to investigate. Therefore, again, there is a much stronger need for substantive evidence before those cases can be considered and people can be found guilty. It is changing in the sentencing, but the nature in which that investigation takes place will be much more rigorous than the current provision that is made on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. That increased sentencing was introduced circa 2020—forgive me, but I do not know exactly when—as an easier way of kind of levelling up the law, because this was too tricky to do then. This is now about just levelling up.

The world feels more hostile. This amendment demonstrates that the Government, and indeed this House, take that very seriously. It incentivises people to provide better evidence of crime. A tweet misgendering would, I think, not likely pass muster, but misgendering while you kick someone’s head in possibly might be an aggravating factor in sentencing, and that feels quite reasonable.

I would say that being counted matters—these crimes being counted matters. I said at Second Reading and in Committee that, when the hate crime law did not exist for people like me, I presumed that the crimes I was experiencing were an okay thing to experience. When Governments from both sides—I say that as a loving Cross-Bencher of all of you—have introduced legislation that protects me, that makes me feel more like I belong in this country. This amendment therefore signals that, as a member of the lesbian, gay, bi and trans community in this country, I am protected from hate crime and that will be taken seriously. I can report it and the police will do their job to find substantive evidence if it exists. If it does not exist, they should send me on my way. This does not give us an opportunity to unpick that, but I absolutely welcome this amendment.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I chair the College of Policing, but I am not speaking in that capacity, nor have I spoken to policing colleagues about this matter.

I want to make a couple of observations about the debate that we have had. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, whose comments I agreed with entirely. The issue that she was seeking to draw attention to was in response to the argument that we have heard that there is no need for the provisions that the Government have set out because the courts can apply a sentencing uplift already for crimes involving hostility to gay or disabled people. Yes, they can, but for the reasons the noble Baroness explained, we are talking about a separate architecture of aggravated offences, which are stand-alone criminal charges, and which are therefore investigated as such from the outset and recorded separately. That sends a much more potent signal about the seriousness of these crimes. These aggravated offences also extend the statutory time limit for cases to be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which the regime of mere sentencing uplift does not. That potentially provides additional protection for victims.

I have a concern with the arguments that are being advanced about the Government’s proposal. If, for instance, the issue is that police time will be wasted by this change in the law and that it is the wrong use of resources, that is an argument for the existing aggravated offences to be swept away. The principled argument to take, and one that would be advanced by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who is nodding vigorously, would be to say that if aggravated offences are wrong, a waste of time and do not matter—I think they matter a great deal for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, set out—then we should sweep them away for offences in relation to religious hatred or racial hatred, because those also are protected characteristics under the Equality Act and this architecture is worthless because it corrodes free speech, and so on.

Make that argument if that is what you believe. However, the reverse argument was put by the Law Commission. Extending this protection for some offences to some groups but not others—to groups that are already recognised as being worthy of protection by the criminal law because of their vulnerability, because they are minority groups—creates a “significant disparity” and causes significant injustice and confusion. A Law Commission report, hundreds of pages long, examined these issues in depth and concluded that there should be an extension.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

That is the second or third time that the 2021 report of the Law Commission of England and Wales has been referred to in this debate. To clarify, that report clearly and strongly recommended not including sex as a protected, aggravated characteristic in the charging or sentencing regime. It set out some extremely good reasons for why sex should not be included from a clearly feminist point of view. By all means, cite the Law Commission’s recommendations to support the inclusion of the other three aggravators that the Government want to add to the charging regime, but it was explicitly not recommended that sex be added as an aggravator.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

But my argument was against the proposal that these offences in their entirety should be rejected by this House—that the Government’s proposal in its entirety should be rejected by this House. I was not engaging with my noble friend’s argument. I have some sympathy with his point, and in particular that merely misgendering someone should not become a criminal offence. It might be a thoroughly unpleasant thing to do but whether it should be an aggravated offence is worthy of discussion. My concern is that we may be getting ourselves into the position of opposing an amendment that makes an aggravated offence in relation to disabled people, as well as to LGBT people, and we reject that and yet we do not for the other offences.

There is also a danger of attempting to trivialise this matter and a confusion with the debate on non-crime hate incidents. We will come to that. I have taken the strong position that we need a much higher bar in relation to those incidents and that the whole regime needs sweeping away. We will come to that. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about potentially very serious criminal offences. We are talking about GBH and criminal damage, and are saying that where those offences are motivated by hostility against a group, it does not make sense that the offence can be aggravated in relation to racial or religious hostility but not in relation to disabled people or to LGBT people.

That is the argument. We are not talking about whether people should be able to say disagreeable things on Twitter. This is not the moment for that debate. We are talking about serious offences and whether they should be aggravated, which would result in a more serious penalty and would send a signal to wider society.

There has been a quite concerning increase in hate crimes in relation to LGBT people, particularly transgender people. I have taken for some time a position, which finds me out of step with most of the groups in the LGBT lobby, that there is a very legitimate discussion to have about how women’s rights are affected by transgender rights and that there needs to be a recalibration of the law and the movement’s positions on this. I happen to take that position. However, I know that the way in which this debate is being conducted outside of this Chamber is resulting in an increase in hate against transgender people. That is deeply concerning. It is vilifying people because of ideological positions that are being taken. It is particularly wrong when people in positions of responsibility start using this debate for political purposes.

I have great concern about the climate in which this debate is being—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to clarify or come back on a couple of things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I will ask a question then. I understand that the noble Lord says that this has been trivialised into just Twitter or non-crime hate incidents. However, hate crime law very often involves speech. Therefore, it is not just a question of GBH and so on. Also, one of the reasons why it has not been possible to make a principled objection to the whole shebang, which I am opposed to, is because of how the amendments have been laid out. It has been quite difficult to break them down in the way that is suggested. Would the noble Lord therefore accept that, for those of us who are worried, it should not have been handled in this way and that the way in which the amendment arrived here does not facilitate the best scrutiny that, as he has indicated, we should give?

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s intervention. This issue merits further and deeper discussion, which is a matter for the Government to address. Yes, of course, the whole principle of aggravated offences and hate crime is that it may involve an infringement upon free speech. The judgment that we must make is whether it is legitimate that it does because of the seriousness of the offences. As I have said, it is very important that we do not allow the criminal law and the police to intrude into the trivial.

The point that I was making is that there is a danger of giving the impression that this is only about disagreeable things that are said on Twitter. It is not. We are talking about offences at the more serious end of the spectrum as well: offences which, when committed against people simply because of their characteristics, because they happen to be members of a particular group, make them more serious. We should be sending that signal to society and protecting the victims. If we do not take that position, and if we think that the whole regime of aggravated offences is wrong, let us take an honest position and say that we will not have them for racial offences or religious offences either. That is not the position, as I understand it, of our Front Bench, which is why I cannot support noble Lords in opposing the Government’s amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this is already proving to be a crucial debate in the passage of this Bill. I support Amendment 416E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Strasburger is unable to be with us to support the amendment, which he has signed, but I hope that I reflect his views in speaking today.

Non-crime hate incidents, although born from the well-intentioned Macpherson report in 1993—which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, called “an honourable start”—have morphed into a mechanism that frequently harasses and silences legitimate debate. In doing so, they consume prodigious quantities of police time, as we have heard—time that is desperately needed to investigate the crimes that we have discussed throughout Committee. Non-crime hate incidents, which started from benign motivations in 1993, have morphed into an ugly and frequently used technique for harassing and silencing somebody whose views the complainant does not like. In the process, prodigious quantities of police time are being wasted on non-criminal matters, meaning that real crimes that would otherwise be investigated are being ignored.

The seeds of what has gone wrong were sown by the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The inquiry concluded that a racist incident should be defined as being

“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

In essence, that means that anyone—whether involved in an incident or not, whether a reasonable person or otherwise—would be able to determine that an incident, no matter how harmless, was racist in nature. The inquiry went on to recommend that

“the term ‘racist incident’ must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment”.

It is remarkable that the inquiry concluded that incidents which are not criminal offences as defined by Parliament should be investigated by the police with equal vigour as those which are criminal offences. That raises fundamental questions about the purpose of the police and what their priorities should be, particularly in a world of potentially limitless demand and highly constrained resource.

Nevertheless, Macpherson’s recommendations relating to racist incidents and their recording were rapidly accepted and implemented by the police and government. Following a 2006 review by Sir Adrian Fulford, a shared definition of hate crimes and non-crime hate incidents was adopted across the criminal justice system, including by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. This expanded the recording of NCHIs beyond purely racist incidents to cover all those characteristics that are covered by hate crime legislation in England and Wales—race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Key to the expansion of alleged NCHIs was the creation, in 2014, of the College of Policing’s Hate Crime Operational Guidance for police forces. Perhaps recognising that the guidance was likely to cause grave concerns to many, the College of Policing made a pre-emptive defence of their policy, saying:

“The recording of, and response to, non-crime hate incidents does not have universal support in society. Some people use this as evidence to accuse the police of becoming ‘the thought police’, trying to control what citizens think or believe, rather than what they do”.


The guidance goes on to say, in relation to hate incidents:

“Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.


The use of “must” in the guidance leaves no latitude for police discretion or the balancing of rights exercise, which would be necessary in considering the subject’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

With the advent of social media, the number of NCHIs being recorded has rocketed. Policy Exchange reported in 2024 that over 13,000 are being logged annually in England and Wales, consuming 60,000 police hours a year. Some keyboard warriors with an axe to grind have made a full-time occupation out of submitting prolific quantities of NCHI complaints with little or no justification. These include a disgraced former policeman who prodigiously exploits the system to frequently harass his political opponents. Some incidents have hit the press, such as when Graham Linehan, the co-creator of “Father Ted”, was arrested on the tarmac at Heathrow over an NCHI.

However, many victims of spurious NCHIs are not even aware that a complaint has been logged against their name. One campaigner found out only when the complainant launched a judicial review of the police’s refusal to take the matter further. As we have heard, the impact of having an unproven NCHI secretly logged against your name can be severe and mean that you are refused a visa to visit certain countries, including America, or that you fail an enhanced DBS check for a job in areas such as education or health.

Freedom of information requests to 43 police forces found zero examples of NCHIs preventing crime. The Metropolitan Police announced last October that it has stopped investigating NCHIs entirely. Last month, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing reported to the Government that NCHIs are “not fit for purpose”.

NCHIs must go. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, stated during our debates on the seventh day in Committee that the College of Policing is reviewing this guidance and that we would see this review before Report. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that review will address the chilling effect on free speech identified in the Miller judgment and whether he accepts that the police must prioritise actual criminality over the recording of NCHIs.

I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state. When will the Government act to abolish NCHIs? If the Minister cannot answer that question, we will have to return to this matter on Report.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests that I am chair of the College of Policing.

As I said at Second Reading, we need to remember that there were benign reasons for the introduction of this regime over three decades ago; what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in this regard was helpful. The purpose was to ensure that the police would pursue intelligence that could build a pattern of behaviour that would result in harm to an individual. That was the case not just in relation to the dreadful murder of Stephen Lawrence but subsequently in the case of Fiona Pilkington, where a repeated pattern of anti-social behaviour had been ignored. It was not criminal behaviour—it fell below that threshold—but it nevertheless resulted in a tragic loss of life.

Nevertheless, as has been noted, there has been considerable change over that three decades, with the advent of social media, smartphones and a much more contested policy space in many of the areas relating to hate crimes or alleged hate crimes. There is the risk of a number of consequences. Those have been drawn attention to by noble Lords, but they include the chilling effect on free speech, the tying up of resources unnecessarily —I will come to that—and, I suggest, at least as serious, damage to the reputation of the police, if it is perceived that they are prioritising the wrong things and getting themselves involved in matters that they should not be.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest declared in the register as chair of the College of Policing.

For our police service, founded on the principle of consent, to be effective, the trust and confidence of the communities they serve is essential. But the proportion of the public who believe the police are doing a good job has fallen precipitously in the last few years. There are multiple causes, but I believe this Bill and the Government’s focus on rebuilding neighbourhood policing will be a very important step towards improving confidence.

We place immense demands on the police service. In recent years, there has been a shift of priorities and resources towards dealing with crimes of harm and important issues such as violence against women and girls—issues which simply were not on the agenda before. Combined with funding and other pressures, we have seen in some forces a failure to attend to the basic standards of service which the public expect, such as action following shoplifting, burglaries or mobile phone theft. It is, I believe, the failure to attend to these basics which exacerbates criticism of the police for overreach, for getting involved in things we do not want them to be doing and in particular in relation to police action which it is felt intrudes upon free speech.

Non-crime hate incidents have become a kind of lightning rod for criticism of the service, and a number of high-profile cases of ill-judged police intervention have undoubtedly damaged confidence. NCHIs were born out of the landmark Stephen Lawrence inquiry as a means to support police to monitor incidents linked to hate or hostility, with the purpose of preventing future crimes, supporting investigations and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. Recent events, such as the horrific attacks on the Manchester synagogue and the Peacehaven mosque, should remind us that dealing with hate crime remains as vital in 2025 as it did over a quarter a century ago.

It is essential that policing continues to have the ability to monitor hate and hostility within our communities. What could not have been envisaged at the time of the Lawrence inquiry was the growth of the internet, the advent of smartphones and social media, and how these have transformed how people interact with each other. The rapid expansion of the online space, coupled with increasingly polarised public discourse, has resulted in forces grappling with the challenge of balancing free speech with monitoring community tension in both physical and online spaces to prevent crime and protect people from harm.

Not all perceived hate reported to police requires a police response or police incident record. The requirement to record should be shaped by necessity, proportionality and legality. There have been high-profile instances where policing has struggled with all three. That is why I called in this Chamber for a rebalancing of the system. At my instigation, the college, together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and with the support of the Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Government, set up a review of the entire system of non-crime hate incidents. The review has found that the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose, and there is a need for broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities. The recording of hurt feelings and differing views should not continue. A report has just been sent to Ministers, and I am sure that they will respond in due course.

But while I believe change is vital to restore public confidence and ensure that free speech is protected, I would counsel against laying all the problems of policing at the door of non-crime hate incidents. The police are not spending all their time policing tweets. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has pointed out that non-crime hate incidents account for 0.05% of the calls they respond to. A number of the high-profile and controversial cases about the policing of social media comment relate to hate crimes—offences that Parliament created for good reason. If we want to revisit those criminal offences, then that is a debate that we should have here, but in the meantime the police have a duty to uphold the law.

We can and should expect that the police will act proportionately, without fear or favour, and use common sense and professional judgment in the investigation of crimes. That judgment was obviously lacking in some recent cases. Therefore, a second key initiative that I and the college’s chief executive, Sir Andy Marsh, have instigated will be new guidance on the exercise of that discretion, so that we can ensure that common-sense decisions are taken and that confidence in the police service is not undermined.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this week, this House earnestly discussed in Oral Questions how to reduce suicides. Suicide has not been a crime for over six decades, but we still think that it is wrong and we still try to prevent it—until today. Today, we consider crossing the Rubicon. We debate not how to prevent suicide but how to facilitate it with the support and resources of the state.

We are told that the purpose of the Bill is to prevent terrible suffering, but there is nothing in the Bill that says this. The essential condition is that someone must be terminally ill, not that they are suffering. We are told that there are safeguards. In the House of Commons, the Bill’s proponents relied on what we were told was an internationally unique safeguard, the authority of a High Court judge. Then that unique but inconvenient safeguard was dropped. We are told that only the terminally ill will be permitted to be helped to end their lives, but if you believe that personal autonomy, the right to choose death, is the overarching principle, why should the law logically stop at the terminally ill? What about the terminally miserable? Why should it not be their right, or anyone’s right, to be helped to die?

I am afraid we already know how the elderly are too often regarded in our society as a burden or a nuisance. We are less inclined than other cultures to care for our elderly in our own homes and more inclined to place them in care—“They’ll be happier there”; “They’ll be better off there”. In these daily acts of purported compassion is betrayed how some will deal with the unwanted elderly if they can. It is not hard to see how, with just a small slip down the slope, the elderly will be dispatched. Of course, it will be “their choice”, as they will not want to “get in the way” or be a “burden”. When the vulnerable are encouraged towards the view that it is better for them to die, the Orwellian-named assisted dying service will be there to step in.

The stories we have heard about the suffering of the terminally ill are heart-rending and we cannot fail to be moved by them, but that is surely a reason to invest more in palliative care, not to commit resources to assisting suicide, and we cannot responsibly legislate simply because we are moved. In truth, we cannot legislate away suffering. No so-called safeguard will persuade me that this Bill is safe or right. Indeed, the very need for safeguards—for instance, against coercion—should warn us of the profound danger to which we are about to expose the elderly and the vulnerable. I cannot support this Bill, and I fear for the consequence if it passes.

Non-crime Hate Incidents

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would never resist a meeting with my noble friend Lord Mann, and he can have one. I always say that it is better to have an open door than to have one kicked down.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of Member’s interests as chair of the College of Policing. Did not the recording of non-crime hate incidents have its genesis in the Macpherson review, as the noble Lord, Lord Austin, said? But that was a quarter of a century ago and since then, we have had the expansion of hate crime laws, the explosion of social media and the very heavily contested space of online comment. Is it not right for the Home Secretary to call for a common-sense approach to this? We may need a rebalancing, so that the police can focus on the job they are meant to do and not be drawn into the policing of mere disputes, which is bad for public confidence in the service.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord does not take this the wrong way, but I pay tribute to him for his work as chair of the College of Policing.

I have tried to say to the House that non-crime hate incidents are there to provide background information. They are not necessarily leading to prosecution or to crime, but the background information can be effective in building up a picture of potential areas where crime may well exist, because people will overstep the mark into criminal activity. We will try to look at that in the round, and as part of the review of police performance, that will be taken into account.