Asked by: Rachel Maclean (Conservative - Redditch)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many non-crime hate incidents have been recorded for each of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 by each police force in each year of this Parliament.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office’s Non-Crime Hate Incidents Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data came into effect in June 2023 and applies to police forces across England and Wales. The code includes safeguards better to protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression and stipulates that police should only record NCHIs when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and not simply because someone is offended. Incidents that are irrational, malicious, or trivial should not be recorded as NCHIs.
To address concerns about the recording of personal data, the code introduced an additional threshold to ensure that personal data may only be included in an NCHI record if the event is motivated by intentional hostility or prejudice and where the police judge that there is a real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence.
The College of Policing publishes operational guidance for the police, known as ‘Authorised Professional Practice’ (APP), on how to deal with different types of crimes and incidents, including NCHIs. The College updated its APP so that it aligns with the Government’s code. The College is responsible for determining police training requirements, and has developed an e-briefing pack on NCHIs which is available to forces.
The code specifically covers characteristics that are protected under hate crime legislation in England and Wales – race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability. It defines transgender identity or perceived transgender identity by setting out that “references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.” This aligns with the definition set out in section 66(6)(e) of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Home Office does not collect data from forces on the number of NCHIs recorded by the police, nor do we collect data relating to the personal characteristics of those involved in incidents. We similarly do not collect information on police spending relating to the investigation of NCHIs. The data collected from the police balances policy needs and the burden on forces.
Asked by: Rachel Maclean (Conservative - Redditch)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has made an estimate of the number of non-crime hate incidents recorded by police forces for each month since May 2023.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office’s Non-Crime Hate Incidents Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data came into effect in June 2023 and applies to police forces across England and Wales. The code includes safeguards better to protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression and stipulates that police should only record NCHIs when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and not simply because someone is offended. Incidents that are irrational, malicious, or trivial should not be recorded as NCHIs.
To address concerns about the recording of personal data, the code introduced an additional threshold to ensure that personal data may only be included in an NCHI record if the event is motivated by intentional hostility or prejudice and where the police judge that there is a real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence.
The College of Policing publishes operational guidance for the police, known as ‘Authorised Professional Practice’ (APP), on how to deal with different types of crimes and incidents, including NCHIs. The College updated its APP so that it aligns with the Government’s code. The College is responsible for determining police training requirements, and has developed an e-briefing pack on NCHIs which is available to forces.
The code specifically covers characteristics that are protected under hate crime legislation in England and Wales – race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability. It defines transgender identity or perceived transgender identity by setting out that “references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.” This aligns with the definition set out in section 66(6)(e) of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Home Office does not collect data from forces on the number of NCHIs recorded by the police, nor do we collect data relating to the personal characteristics of those involved in incidents. We similarly do not collect information on police spending relating to the investigation of NCHIs. The data collected from the police balances policy needs and the burden on forces.
Asked by: Rachel Maclean (Conservative - Redditch)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many non-crime hate incidents have been recorded by each police force in each year of this Parliament.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office’s Non-Crime Hate Incidents Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data came into effect in June 2023 and applies to police forces across England and Wales. The code includes safeguards better to protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression and stipulates that police should only record NCHIs when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and not simply because someone is offended. Incidents that are irrational, malicious, or trivial should not be recorded as NCHIs.
To address concerns about the recording of personal data, the code introduced an additional threshold to ensure that personal data may only be included in an NCHI record if the event is motivated by intentional hostility or prejudice and where the police judge that there is a real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence.
The College of Policing publishes operational guidance for the police, known as ‘Authorised Professional Practice’ (APP), on how to deal with different types of crimes and incidents, including NCHIs. The College updated its APP so that it aligns with the Government’s code. The College is responsible for determining police training requirements, and has developed an e-briefing pack on NCHIs which is available to forces.
The code specifically covers characteristics that are protected under hate crime legislation in England and Wales – race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability. It defines transgender identity or perceived transgender identity by setting out that “references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.” This aligns with the definition set out in section 66(6)(e) of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Home Office does not collect data from forces on the number of NCHIs recorded by the police, nor do we collect data relating to the personal characteristics of those involved in incidents. We similarly do not collect information on police spending relating to the investigation of NCHIs. The data collected from the police balances policy needs and the burden on forces.
Asked by: Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps the Government is taking to help protect Hong Kong (a) asylum seekers and (b) BNO visa holders who have settled in the UK from the Hong Kong authorities.
Answered by Tom Tugendhat - Minister of State (Home Office) (Security)
The Government continually assesses potential threats in the UK, and takes protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and safety very seriously.
We will not tolerate any attempts by the authorities of Hong Kong or China, or any other country to intimidate and silence individuals in the UK and overseas. The UK will always defend the universal right to freedom of expression and stand up for those who are targeted.
DLUHC, Home Office and FCDO regularly engage with a wide range of British Nationals Overseas (BN(O)) community groups. While it is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on security and intelligence matters, where we identify individuals at heightened risk, we are front footed in deploying protective security guidance and other measures as appropriate.
Furthermore, The Defending Democracy Taskforce is reviewing the UK’s approach to transnational repression to ensure we have a robust and joined up response across government and law enforcement.
Asked by: Debbie Abrahams (Labour - Oldham East and Saddleworth)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many inspections have the Health and Safety Executive conducted by sector in each year since 2008.
Answered by Paul Maynard - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The table below shows the number of inspections, by year and by sector, carried out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for each financial year since 2017. HSE’s data deletion policy only allows for retention of detailed inspection data for up to 7 years, therefore data before 2017 can be found on Gov.uk website.
The figures below are based on raw live data and can be subject to change due to updates to historical cases. Therefore these figures may differ to the figures published in the Annual Reports.
‘Sector’ as used in this table is a term used by HSE internally and is a categorisation of the main economic activity of a workplace. The figures below include inspections to major hazard sites. A breakdown by sector is not always published in the Annual Reports as the focus will be on the respective priorities of business plan for that work year.
Year Inspected | ||||||
Sector | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 |
Agriculture | 574 | 773 | 708 | 229 | 405 | 868 |
Construction | 7,872 | 7,472 | 5,004 | 4,582 | 6,134 | 6,146 |
Extractive Utilities | 135 | 42 | 40 | 148 | 44 | 86 |
Manufacturing | 6,068 | 5,289 | 4,322 | 6,080 | 5,729 | 5,417 |
Services | 3,304 | 3,195 | 2,291 | 3,717 | 3,426 | 2,959 |
Unknown | 7 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Water/Waste Management | 1,626 | 1,418 | 1,148 | 2,225 | 1,258 | 1,434 |
Total | 19,586 | 18,194 | 13,514 | 16,985 | 17,000 | 16,912 |
Asked by: Stephen Morgan (Labour - Portsmouth South)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, what recent steps he has taken to (a) encourage the Israeli Government to uphold international law and (b) ensure the protection of (i) journalists and (ii) citizens in Gaza.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We recognise the valuable work of journalists operating on the ground in Gaza, providing important coverage of the conflict in incredibly challenging circumstances. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both met the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and have stressed to him that Israel must protect all civilians as far as possible and abide by International Humanitarian Law; under International Humanitarian Law, journalists covering conflicts should be afforded protection. We continue to press both at the UN and directly with Israel for unhindered humanitarian access and substantive humanitarian pauses, to ensure the conditions are safe for humanitarian organisations to deliver aid to those in need and give respite to civilians.
The UK also supported the recent Media Freedom Coalition statement expressing concern over the repercussions for the safety of journalists and access to information caused by the serious escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. It called on all parties to the conflict to comply with international law and guarantee the protection of journalists and media workers covering the conflict.
Asked by: Stephanie Peacock (Labour - Barnsley East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, what recent discussions he has held with the(a) the United Nations, (b) Israeli government and (c) Palestinian authority on steps to improve the safety of (i) journalists and (ii) other media professionals covering the conflict in Gaza.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We recognise the valuable work of journalists operating on the ground in Gaza, providing important coverage of the conflict in incredibly challenging circumstances. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both met the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and have stressed to him that Israel must protect all civilians as far as possible and abide by International Humanitarian Law; under International Humanitarian Law, journalists covering conflicts should be afforded protection. We continue to press both at the UN and directly with Israel for unhindered humanitarian access and substantive humanitarian pauses, to ensure the conditions are safe for humanitarian organisations to deliver aid to those in need and give respite to civilians.
The UK also supported the recent Media Freedom Coalition statement expressing concern over the repercussions for the safety of journalists and access to information caused by the serious escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. It called on all parties to the conflict to comply with international law and guarantee the protection of journalists and media workers covering the conflict.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 14 December (HL767), on what basis the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs report Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, sent to the Home Secretary in December 2016, was shared "in confidence"; and who took the decision to waive any such confidentiality in relation to the part of the report that has been made public.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The document was not intended for publication and there are no plans to publish it. The portion that has been made public was made public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) and following the decision of the relevant tribunal (case reference EA/2021/0301).
The portion released under the FOIA 2000 recommended a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office to take into account the functions of the ACMD under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Working Protocol has not been revised since 2011 and is available at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Government intends to undertake a review in due course and if this results in a revised Working Protocol, the revised version will be published on gov.uk.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 14 December (HL767), what steps they have taken to ensure that parliamentarians are properly informed about the issues raised in the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs report Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, sent to the Home Secretary in December 2016.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The document was not intended for publication and there are no plans to publish it. The portion that has been made public was made public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) and following the decision of the relevant tribunal (case reference EA/2021/0301).
The portion released under the FOIA 2000 recommended a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office to take into account the functions of the ACMD under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Working Protocol has not been revised since 2011 and is available at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Government intends to undertake a review in due course and if this results in a revised Working Protocol, the revised version will be published on gov.uk.
Asked by: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 14 December (HL767), what is the status of the review of the Working Protocol between the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs and the Home Office; when the review will be completed; and whether it will be published.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
As set out by the response to Written Answer HL767, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) marked the document titled “Interaction and relationship between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016” “in confidence”. The document was not intended for publication and there are no plans to publish it. The portion that has been made public was made public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) and following the decision of the relevant tribunal (case reference EA/2021/0301).
The portion released under the FOIA 2000 recommended a review of the Working Protocol between the ACMD and the Home Office to take into account the functions of the ACMD under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”). The Working Protocol has not been revised since 2011 and is available at the following link: Working Protocol between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Government intends to undertake a review in due course and if this results in a revised Working Protocol, the revised version will be published on gov.uk.