---

Crime and Policing Bill

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 409D, I will speak to the other amendments in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issues of police force publication of enforcement data, reducing police paperwork and the reform of disclosure to that end. I have discovered in a long career in business and in government that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and the regulations themselves, and this is particularly true for neighbourhood policing.

It is not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data. Better data on enforcement, publicly available, would both be a motivator for effective policy and help to hold the police to account. My amendment therefore takes in five areas of public concern that the great British public care about: shoplifting offences, offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare dodging on public transport, and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters. The Minister mentioned in Committee that the Home Office will introduce a sector-facing police performance dashboard this year. It will help chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the sort of data that we are seeking, and to drive improvements.

Midnight

I have two questions, the answers to which might help to allay my concerns. First, will this information be made accessible to the public by each police force, at least on an annual basis? Secondly, will the five categories in my amendment be covered?

That brings me to my new Amendment 409F, a new clause on data sharing. Ministers may know of the Police Federation campaign #SimplifyDG6. It aims to tackle the bureaucracy around disclosure that sees both uniformed and detective officers tied up for hours. Police officers are required to redact files that go to the CPS in order for it to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an offender. A data bubble, allowing unredacted information to be exchanged between the police and the CPS before a charging decision, would free up thousands of policing hours every year. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned in Committee that this could be achieved by a modest and targeted change to the Data Protection Act, and that is exactly what my amendment seeks to do. There was a reference to the disclosure problem in the police White Paper, which makes me optimistic, and I hope

that the Minister will therefore agree to our approach and come back at Third Reading with his own amendment along these lines. There is really no need for further delay.

My amendment also seeks a review of the efficiency and speed of the sharing of the police national database. This is a probing amendment because I understand that, due to stringent data controls, it is very difficult for Met officers quickly to get data—for example, on child abuse—on past investigations from other police forces. Unfortunately, such crimes do not follow police boundaries. I look forward to the Minister undertaking to look into the problem.

Amendment 409E seeks to tackle the huge bureaucracy that police services have become, with energetic police officers weighed down by petty requirements. The Bill adds to such requirements, rather than the reverse. The Bill introduces new offences—for example, in sexual and online crime—but it is much lighter on neighbourhood policing. We need to free up resources for enforcement, which is why I proposed a review of police paperwork and its online equivalent. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the 2023 police activity survey, which is to be repeated this year; perhaps he could summarise the main findings and explain how it is actually being used to reduce bureaucracy.

From the Minister’s reference to the College of Policing’s work on productivity, I fear that current activity is disproportionately focused on fashionable AI. In my experience, this can lead to expensive outside contracts freezing existing practices. What we need is to reduce the number of less important steps and functions in the police, and to look at experience elsewhere, such as lean thinking in business process. We found this very useful in the retail sphere: another huge employer of well-trained, decent people.

A review should also look at the IT and AI systems, linking police to the courts and the CPS and to other enforcement bodies. The truth is, as was mentioned in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that whenever you talk to police officers, one of the most voluble frustrations they voice is the ever-growing regime of paperwork and bureaucracy. There is huge scope for savings and simplification, given the right direction from the Minister. The Wild West of street crime is here today, but, as the Government have made clear, their reforms will take years. They will also increase paperwork, not decrease it; for example, requiring a licence to practise for every police constable. This will lead to a mushrooming of accreditation and training paperwork, or online filing linked to the proposed well-being and development checks and career pathways. This is all the more reason for our proposed review of paperwork and bureaucracy.

If the Minister were agreeable, I would be delighted to meet him, or his ministerial colleagues, to discuss the best way to progress this agenda. I have business and Civil Service experience of cutting red tape and would frankly like to help—but obviously at a more civilised hour. I beg to move.