Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Secondary International Competitiveness and Growth Objective (FSR Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Financial Services Regulation Committee Growing pains: clarity and culture change required. An examination of the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective (2nd Report, HL Paper 133).
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this debate on the Financial Services Regulation Committee’s report on the secondary competitiveness and growth objectives. These were set for the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
I must start with some thanks. Special thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, formerly my noble friend, still my friend, but now our distinguished Lord Speaker. He chaired the committee from its inception some two years ago with great skill and energy, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude. Thanks also go to our clerk, Beth Hooper, and her colleagues in the Committee Office, as well as to our specialist advisers Professor Rosa Lastra and Mr Michael Raffan. Of course, no committee could exist without its members, some of whom are speaking today, and I thank them, too.
The committee was set up as a direct result of debates about the accountability of the financial services regulators during the passage of the 2023 Act and we chose as our first major inquiry the secondary competitiveness and growth objectives created by the Act. These require the PRA and the FCA to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy, in particular in the financial services sector, and its growth in the medium to long term. They do not override the regulators’ primary objectives, but they are an important element in the complex hierarchy of objectives, have-regards and regulatory principles that we summarise in Appendix 7. These objectives are new territory for the financial services regulators and there is great interest in the financial services sector about the impact that the objectives will have. It is unsurprising that we received a large amount of evidence, both written and oral, as set out in Appendix 2. We have also received responses from the Government and both regulators.
The 2023 Act was Conservative legislation but, with growth as the Labour Government’s number one mission, it was good to see that they embraced the initiative. The financial services sector is important both directly as a component of the UK economy and as an enabler of growth in the real economy. Financial services account for about 9% of GDP. As the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which was published after our report, pointed out, the sector’s contribution to output and productivity growth has fallen behind the rest of the UK economy, so this focus on financial services is important.
I have one final opening remark. We reported at a point in time—last May—that this is not a static area. I have just mentioned the competitiveness and growth strategy, but many other initiatives from the Government and the regulators have emerged or been fleshed out in more detail since then. I am sure that the Minister will reel off a lot of that when he responds later, but let me just say to him that those who are following this debate are interested in what is actually being achieved in terms of growth and competitiveness. I hope that his closing remarks will reflect that.
Our report is long and our conclusions and recommendations run to 77 paragraphs; I will not be able to cover them all, noble Lords will be relieved to hear. There are three angles on the secondary objectives in our report: first, the impact of regulation on the financial services sector; secondly, the impact of that regulation on the wider economy; and, lastly, the role of government.
The UK has a complex regulatory architecture, which we set out in Appendix 6. The PRA and the FCA are the lead actors, but there are many interfaces and overlaps with other bodies. The Government have started to address this with plans to roll the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA and a consultation to address the interface between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the FCA, which many cited as a major problem. We welcomed these reforms, which must be completed.
In evidence, we heard how financial services firms are inundated by information requests, that the cost of regulatory compliance in the UK was considerably higher than in other jurisdictions and that the regulators did not focus on the cumulative burden of regulation on firms. The FCA’s consumer duty was often cited as lacking clarity and proportionality. We also heard that the regulators take far too long to deal with authorisations, with a disconnect between the regulators’ views of their performance and the experience of firms.
While we were encouraged by a new focus on operational efficiency in the regulators, in particular in authorisations and related performance metrics, we were disappointed that the Government resisted our recommendation that they should undertake international benchmarking as a spur to further UK improvements. Cumulatively, the evidence that we received pointed towards there being a regulatory premium, which discourages investment in UK financial services.
Lurking beneath all these detailed areas lies the complex area of culture in the regulators, which we characterised as risk aversion. Culture is the most difficult thing to change in any organisation. There are encouraging signs that the regulators are trying to change what they do and how they do it—for example, overhauling their voluminous data requirements—but the jury is still out on whether their culture is changing in a deep way.
Turning to the impact of the secondary objectives on growth in the wider economy, one of the problems that we found was that the effect of actions by financial services regulators is not well articulated either by the regulators or by the Government. In addition, the metrics that the Treasury has set in order to monitor progress simply do not deal with much beyond operational processes in the regulators.
Financial services firms, particularly banks, are an important source of funding to businesses, enabling the investment that is needed to underpin growth in the economy. Despite constant assertions that a lack of investment is one of the key factors behind lack of productivity growth in the UK economy and that more productive investment is essential to achieving the Government’s growth mission, we were surprised to find that data do not exist on the proportion of total lending that finds its way into productive investment. We said that the Government and the Bank of England should work on this and, while the Financial Policy Committee has published some findings on high growth firm financing, this falls a long way short of our call for proper data on economy-wide investment. On Monday this week, Positive Money reported that only 6% of bank lending last year went into productive investment. The Government really must start to take this seriously.
The Committee delved into the arcane territory of bank capital, which is a key determinant of lending capacity. We received evidence that, unlike in other countries such as the US, the approach of the PRA starts from the position that the Basel rules, which were aimed at international banks, should apply to all UK banks. The PRA is at long last introducing a small domestic deposit takers regime, which is less onerous and which we welcomed, but the PRA applies the rules in their entirety to mid-sized banks. Mid-sized banks are also hit by the minimum requirement for eligible liabilities—or MREL—rules, which mean that they have to raise costly capital once they hit the MREL threshold or alternatively manage their businesses so as to keep below the threshold. Neither course is good for lending into the productive economy.
An additional problem is that large banks can minimise their risk-weighted assets, and hence their capital, by using approved models—called the IRB approach—but the approval process takes many years, and few mid-sized banks have achieved it. We made a number of recommendations, including asking the PRA to consider a more proportionate judgment-based approach to setting bank capital requirements rather than slavishly following Basel III, and to speed up its IRB approval process. We also said that the Government should work with the Bank of England to look at the cumulative impact on regulatory capital to get the right balance between financial stability and the need to finance productive investment.
The Bank has now increased the MREL threshold, but only to keep pace with inflation. In addition, the Financial Policy Committee has reported that overall bank capital levels can be reduced by one percentage point, and the PRA has said that it will improve the IRB process. Although this is welcome, there is no sign yet that it will improve matters for mid-sized banks, and the PRA is unreceptive to the idea of a proportionate, judgment-based approach. This may be a missed opportunity.
We did not focus entirely on banks. We noted that the Solvency II regime should help insurance companies to unlock more capital for productive investment. We also noted the Government’s pension scheme reforms and recorded our serious reservations about the mandation power, which could force pension schemes to invest in particular ways. The House will express its opinion on that next week during the Report stage of the Pension Schemes Bill.
The final area of our report covered the role of government. We did not find clarity about how the policy objective of growth in the economy was to be achieved by the regulators, and the Government have set metrics that shed no light. The Government need to grasp this issue. I have already referred to our recommendation on benchmarking the performance of the regulators internationally; the Government have not embraced that either, claiming that it is difficult to do. That is not a good reason for not doing it, and I urge the Government to look at it again.
We could not avoid getting into risk appetite, especially as the FCA has regularly called for the Government to set their risk appetite. We did not fully agree with that, but we did think the Government could be more specific about the policies they wanted the regulators to action. We called for this to appear in the Government’s financial services sector strategy, but that strategy was silent. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government refuse to get involved in risk appetite.
Lastly, we recommended that the Government should keep the secondary objective under review. I do not think it controversial to say that it is still a work in progress. We asked that the Government update Parliament and the committee annually, in particular on whether the objective is achieving growth in the UK economy. I hope the Minister will today confirm that the Government will do that, and say when we will see the first of these annual reports. I beg to move.
Lord Kestenbaum (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on an excellent opening to the debate. I am aware that she has recently taken over the chairing of the committee and will no doubt bring to that role her hard-earned reputation for penetrating insight, intellectual rigour and—above all, for all those who have worked with her—no-holds-barred candour. This is also an opportunity to pay tribute to her distinguished predecessor as chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose chairmanship was nothing less than a master class and who, as noble Lords are well aware, has gone on to a higher place.
I was privileged to serve as a member of the committee and believe that the report is particularly timely, for in pursuit of economic growth in this country we continue to confront short-term headwinds and long-standing structural reform. In simple terms, the unenviable combination of no clear engine for economic growth, decades of low productivity and weak business investment compared with other advanced economies makes the Government’s secondary objective for our regulator all the more critical at this time.
With that said, and however much we would wish it otherwise, it does not seem self-evident that the primary and secondary objectives sit in perfect alignment; or at least, as evidenced from this report, much change is needed for that to be the case. With that in mind, allow me to draw three illustrations from the very subtitle of this inquiry: namely, culture change—the noble Baroness referred to it already—or, as I will suggest in my remarks, it is more like an aching need for nothing less than cultural transformation.
My first illustration of the cultural impediments that stand in the way of the regulator grasping this inquiry’s nettle is implicit in the regulator’s very own response to the report, for consider this: this has been the most comprehensive inquiry of its type on this issue. It lasted over a year, it runs to 145 pages and hundreds of hours of evidence were taken from industry, trade bodies, government, financial services and the like, all of which culminated, as the noble Baroness said, in 77 recommendations. They are 77 individual, well-evidenced, tightly argued recommendations for comprehensive change at the regulator, if this secondary objective is to be pursued in earnest. So it was rather dispiriting to read a somewhat patronising opening response from the regulator to the inquiry, whose top line is:
“We are pleased that we have work underway, or already completed, that addresses most of the Committee’s recommendations”.
Perhaps one could not wish for a more tangible illustration of the need for cultural overhaul, one that puts a premium on a regulator that acknowledges its shortcomings, embraces radical evidence-based solutions—this inquiry —and demonstrates full accountability, rather than a response that basically said, “Nothing to see here”.
My second illustration of the pressing need for the type of cultural transformation that the inquiry called for is a subtle one. It is a deft line in the report:
“We were disappointed by the difference in candour between the evidence we received from industry in public and the views expressed to us in private”.
It is the inverse of my favourite political joke: the senator who was asked what he felt of a young, promising congressman, Bill. He said, “Bill? I think so highly of him that I am even prepared to praise him in private”. In this case, it is the opposite: the suggestion—not just a suggestion—that, in public, firms and trade bodies would toe the party line but, in private, they were somewhat more forthcoming, if I can put it that way. That might say everything about the health of the ties between the regulator and the regulated and, perhaps more particularly—I am sorry to say it—the trust deficit that lies between them. The fear of the regulated in expressing a candid view in public is hardly conducive to the type of dynamic, competitive business sector that the secondary objective has in mind.
Finally, the third illustration emerging from the report also draws on my personal experience. As declared in my register of interests and elsewhere, I have spent much of my career in the financial services, particularly in listed and regulated businesses. As a result, and sadly so, I fully recognise evidence that spoke of supervisory teams mostly having limited or no experience of the fields that they were supervising. My own experience has been of enforcement being overrigid and often indifferent to the realities, complexities and uncertainties of business life. This inflexibility becomes a brake on competitive ambition and often seems to run through supervisors like a stick of rock. A slavish adherence to what has been described elsewhere as the
“total elimination of all risk”
hardly seems conducive to the innovative competitive economy that Governments of all stripes aspire to. My own experience was simple, and sometimes positive. At the top of the food chain, our interactions with regulators were often constructive, engaging and solutions-oriented. Deeper into the system, the middle and junior ranks might show a modicum of willing, but too often a lack of understanding of financial services businesses and their complex realities.
So I offer three practical illustrations based, in some measure, on my experience of not just the culture change needed, as the report suggests, but the culture transformation. If we have learned one thing about competitive economies, it is that, when you have the right culture, especially a leadership culture, you will overcome most structural impediments. Conversely, if you do not have the right culture, especially at the top, no amount of structural overhaul or, indeed, well-meaning secondary objectives will help—a cautionary tale for our regulators and their political masters.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I have a registerable shareholding in Fidelity National Information Services Inc. It has been fascinating to be a member of this committee, which for this report, as we have heard, was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who, as we all know, has moved on to greater things. I also thank our new chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing this debate with her usual clarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, said that this report is timely and I agree with him, but I would not go as far as to agree with him about the timing of this debate. The report was published almost nine months ago and I confess that it has taken me a little while to get back up to speed and remind myself what it said. I hope that future reports will be considered in a more timely manner.
At the outset, it is worth saying, as we do in our report, that the secondary growth and competitiveness objective has provided a valuable stimulus for the regulators to consider the impact of their activities on growth and competitiveness. We should recognise that they have taken this seriously. Of course, there is a balance to be reached between looking at the impact of regulation on growth and ensuring that risks, both systemic and to the consumer, are proportionately managed. There is a sense that, following the 2008-09 financial crisis, the pendulum has swung too far towards eliminating risk, but we clearly need to be alert to the danger that it might swing back the other way, as we rightly put greater emphasis on growth. We must also recognise that a stable, predictable, even dull regulatory environment has been and is an important aspect of the attractiveness of our financial services sector, but it must be proportionate.
It is a long report, so I will highlight just one or two of the points that we raised. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, pointed out, concerns were raised about the culture of the regulators. It was very noticeable that witnesses seemed much more prepared to be candid with us in private sessions than in public. Miles Celic, CEO of TheCityUK, put it rather bluntly when he said:
“There is a concern … that, as one person put it to me, being critical of the regulator publicly will result in an enforcement punishment beating later”.
That is concerning. It implies a lack of trust between the regulators and the industry. The regulators should recognise that and do everything possible to overcome it.
Mr Celic also gave us the example of an American company with operations in both the UK and the US, which said that
“regulators in the US … started from the position of asking, ‘What will the impact of what we are doing be on growth?’ But his experience in the UK was that the regulatory starting point was, ‘What will the impact of what we are proposing here be on risk?’”
It seems more difficult than one would expect to make international comparisons of the burden of regulation and there seems to be a reluctance on the part of both the regulators and government to research this fully. We received plenty of evidence that the UK regulatory burdens are significantly greater than those in comparable jurisdictions such as the US. The CEO of Marsh McLennan told us that
“on a direct cost-only basis, the UK is at least six times more expensive than our next most expensive country from a regulatory perspective”.
The Investment Association told us that
“industry headcount for Compliance, Legal and Audit has almost tripled from 2009”,
and other witnesses gave us stark examples of the amount of data that has to be provided, often for unclear purposes, as the data requirements are greater in the UK than in other countries. This may be anecdotal, but it is clear that, at the very least, the UK has gained a reputation for being a disproportionately high-cost environment from a regulatory perspective.
Rigorously analysing compliance costs internationally may be difficult, as the regulators and other analysts make clear, but unless we gain a clear understanding of how we compare to other countries it will be very difficult to understand if and where regulation is creating barriers to growth. This really must be addressed and measured to the extent possible.
However, the Government say in their response that “direct comparison is difficult”, which, to be frank, is pretty weak. They go on to say:
“The government and regulators will continue to consider how the regulators’ efficiency and performance can be meaningfully compared to those of international comparators”.
That was over six months ago, so perhaps the Minister can update us on what further consideration they have carried out in those six months.
The driver for this apparently higher level of regulation in the UK is the risk-averse culture that our report highlights. Regulators understandably became more risk averse after the financial crisis. I have some sympathy for the regulators here; it is very easy for us politicians and the Government to tell the regulators that they should tolerate greater risk, but the regulators know that if some serious risks were to crystallise, the blame would still fall squarely on them. If the Government want to see greater risk tolerance and a lighter-touch regulation, which I think we all want to see, they need to be much clearer about what is acceptable and to accept their share of responsibility if the risk crystallises, not just blame the regulators when it goes wrong.
We also mention in our report regulatory mission creep. Again, there is always a tendency for this—regulators will regulate—and it is right to call it out. But again, we in Parliament and those in government need to take some responsibility for this, too. We keep putting an ever-growing list of objectives, and in particular have-regards, on to the regulators. I know that I am guilty of this myself; I supported the net-zero have-regards in the FSMA 2023, which I now regret, having gone through this process. It can be no surprise that, if we keep adding to regulators’ remits, they will react by adding rules, data requirements and other onerous burdens to meet those. There needs to be a regular review of the objectives and the have-regards so that regulators are able to concentrate on their core purpose and reduce unnecessary burdens on the firms that they regulate. The Government and we as politicians need to be more disciplined about adding to the mission creep of regulators.
It is welcome that the FCA appears to be learning lessons from other jurisdictions. A good example is the creation of a Singapore-style concierge service to support international investment, which is very welcome. I look forward to seeing real metrics about how effective that has been once it has been up and running for a while.
The committee had a lot of discussions about what we mean by growth and competitiveness. First, there is the growth and competitiveness of the financial services industry itself. It is a very significant part of the economy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, so growth of the industry will have an impact on overall GDP of itself. But the secondary objective goes beyond the industry itself, requiring the regulators to consider the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom and its growth in the medium to long term. It is there that the secondary objective becomes rather less clear.
The link between financial services regulation and wider economic growth does not seem to be widely understood or well researched. Economic growth is driven by new investment into and by business and into productive assets. We saw very limited evidence of how regulation has much impact on that and a lack of data on how much investment is made by the financial services sector into productive assets or growth companies. This needs to be improved. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government are doing to improve that understanding, as we recommended.
I will finish by referring to a current piece of legislation that is going through the House—the Pension Schemes Bill, to which we will be returning on Monday and indeed on which we had an exchange just 45 minutes ago in the main Chamber. Our report highlights that the pension industry is fragmented and underinvests in UK productive assets. I, and I think the committee, agreed with the Government that action should be taken to improve this, which the industry has also agreed. The Pension Schemes Bill tries to address that and a lot of what it includes is good. For example, the proposed value-for-money framework should encourage funds to look more at returns rather than just fees, which should allow funds to consider a wider range of investment types. However, the Bill also includes the blunt instrument of giving the Government the power to mandate asset allocation by pension funds, which the committee raised serious concerns about.
I will ask this Minister exactly the same question that I asked the Minister in the Chamber 45 minutes ago and that I did not receive an answer to. I have asked this several times and still have not received an answer, so I hope the Minister will actually answer it this time. If not, I would be perfectly happy for him to write to me with a real answer, rather than the platitudes that I have received so many times so far.
It is really simple: why do the Government think that pension funds have been so reluctant to invest in these UK productive assets that the Government are so keen for them to invest in? They keep telling us that these are fantastic assets and that there are fantastic returns to be made from them, so why are pension funds not doing it? This is not a rhetorical question, and I really would like an answer.
The reason I ask is that surely a better way to encourage pension funds to invest in UK productive assets would be to identify and remove the barriers that are preventing such investments from being made, and to make those investments more attractive. Surely that is a better way than forcing pension funds to make investments that they do not wish to make.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I point to my registered interests: I serve on the boards of Chevron Corporation, Starbucks and the Oxford University investment endowment, all of which are impacted by the regulatory environment in the United Kingdom. I welcome that we are having a debate about a growth objective for our financial regulatory environment and regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Even so, this report is clear that, although Parliament gave the mandate of a growth objective to the regulators back in 2023, it has not yet adequately been acted upon.
It is understandable that, in the report, many in the financial services industry have expressed frustration at the persistently high regulatory burden in the United Kingdom. But, in the historic context, the intrinsic caution shown by regulators is not a surprise, given the scale of the damage caused in the 2008 global financial crisis to both the financial system and the wider economy. Yet such an aggressive regulatory stance has considerable costs. For example—I know this from my own experience, having served as a board member of Barclays bank from 2009—the regulatory reaction and, specifically, the costs ascribed by the UK regulators to holding certain assets ultimately led to the disposal of international businesses, a decision that the firm would likely not otherwise have taken.
Overcoming regulatory caution is clearly not simply down to a mandate in a piece of legislation; it is about a fundamental shift in mindset, culture and risk aversion, which has already been mentioned—a shift that those working in a regulatory body may see as counterintuitive. Yet this shift is much needed. I therefore support the call in the paper for the FCA’s and PRA’s senior leadership to drive cultural change through their organisations. We of course must all recognise that, although not impossible, this is a very difficult proposition.
Such a shift must surely recognise and involve a concerted investment in education around two specific points. The first is the need for a fundamental understanding of the harm of the prevailing regulatory burden and the cost to business and economic growth of the status quo. In particular, it is vital to understand the consequences of regulatory duplication and overreach for business output, productivity, employment, taxation and wider economic growth. Specifically, regulators need a better and more practical understanding of how high regulatory burdens impose real costs in terms of time and financial expense, making the UK less competitive on the international stage. I was struck by the data showing that one firm employed 78 compliance officers for the UK market alone, compared to 73 covering 40 other countries in its European and Middle Eastern operations.
Secondly, it is important to innately understand the impact of regulation on innovation. This is a particularly crucial point given the enormous benefits as well as the costs that AI promises. It should be a priority to really grasp how this AI supercycle could append the UK’s growth fortunes and longer-term outlook for the country’s prosperity. In the United States today, for example, estimates suggest that, through productivity gains and increased capital investment, AI could add as much as 1.5 percentage points per year to the country’s GDP growth.
Were similar gains to occur in the United Kingdom— I am in a sense spitballing here—GDP growth could soar close to 3% per year here in the UK, thereby clearing a crucial hurdle to where we can put a dent in poverty and materially improve living standards within a generation. Yet, despite this appealing prospect, UK regulation is regularly blamed for weak capital markets, including a poor IPO environment, and paltry investment by cornerstone investors such as UK pension funds, endowments and insurance companies, all of which should be powering AI investment.
The unattractive UK investment landscape, buttressed by constraining regulation, could at least in part explain why the report highlights concern over a series C funding gap, which is forcing much-needed growth companies to leave the UK when they seek to raise in excess of £50 to £100 million.
To put it simply, the country needs less regulation, not more. In essence, policy should be attracting investment, not forcing investors, and a more growth-focused regulator is bound to attract more capital investment. I therefore agree with the serious reservations expressed by the committee regarding any proposal to mandate pension funds to comply with the prescribed asset allocation.
This debate comes when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has downgraded the growth outlook of the country to just 1.1% in 2026. Worryingly, this reflects how the country was already on a long-term structural economic decline, and the war in Iran will only dampen our growth prospects.
The essential question is this: in five to 10 years from now, will Britain’s economy in real terms be bigger, smaller or just the same? To alter our economic prospects from today’s growth malaise and set us on a prosperous trajectory, regulation must be relevant, on point and, most importantly, appropriately curtailed. Doing so will ensure the longer-term prospects of the financial services sector, which, as noble Lords have already heard, is critical for the economy. It will ensure that the sector is stronger and better equipped to serve as an engine of growth for our economy.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of Intercontinental Exchange in the United States, and as an adviser in Europe to Santander and Visa Europe. This enables me to see the very different regulatory approaches in different jurisdictions, which is, indeed, one of the themes that we have already referred to today.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes—in keeping with tradition, I almost called her Lady Bowles, an in-joke among committee members—for setting out the range of issues so clearly at the beginning and for taking on the burden of chairing us. I much enjoyed the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum. How sad we are that he is no longer with us—on the committee, I mean; it is not that the noble Lord sits before us as a hologram, or agentic AI as I believe it might be called. I want to highlight a couple of points from the deliberations of the committee and the report.
First, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, the secondary international growth and competitiveness objective has made and is making a difference. I admit that when it was introduced I was initially sceptical and thought it might just be a piece of window dressing. But in fact, in the hands of motivated Ministers—which I am glad to say we have had—it has turned out to be of real use. It has helped us open up a more intelligent discussion about risk. Direct parliamentary accountability through our committee, backed up by a system of metrics, has also given us some scaffolding, off which we have been able to build a better debate and a better system of holding regulators to account. I think we have seen how the regulators themselves—it must be said that they were initially extremely doubtful about this requirement, if not resistant to it—have started to warm to it. Indeed, they now argue that it is helping them to improve both their regulatory and their supervisory practice. So far, so good.
But as our report points out, and as my noble friend Lady Noakes has already said, we should think of this whole area as a work in progress, not as a fixed point. After all, our own risk appetite as a society is not fixed, nor is that of our international competitors. Indeed, we have only to look at recent regulatory developments in the United States since we started our inquiry to see just how dynamic and competitive that landscape is.
Therefore, as the report argues, we need to keep the metrics by which we judge the performance of the regulators under constant review. We should seek to tighten them, to be more ambitious, to raise the bar and to keep on pushing for better performance. Here, as we have already heard, the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations was, I have to say, disappointing. Metrics may not sound very dramatic or poetic, but they are the means by which we can shine a light into the world of regulation and supervision. I argue that the Government should be more ambitious here, and so should our regulators.
I will draw attention to one other area: the question of whether we could do more to differentiate between how we think about regulating wholesale and retail markets. We raised this in the report, and we heard evidence that suggested that attitudes of mind developed in the field of consumer protection are, as it were, leaking across into the regulation of wholesale markets. Here, obviously, risk appetite and sophistication of investors are completely different, and it is in wholesale markets that London’s claim to be a global financial centre will be won—or lost. Ministers have given us hints that they think it is worth thinking more carefully about this wholesale/retail distinction, and perhaps the Minister might feel able to give us another hint today.
I have a final word for the financial services sector itself. Just as we want to prevent mission creep from regulators and supervisors, so the sector needs to prevent it in its own compliance departments, legal advice and board discussions. If we want to have a new attitude in Britain that is more accepting of risk, we cannot just blame everything on the poor old regulators. Yes, they have their share of responsibility, but the primary responsibility surely rests with the politicians, who have for too long outsourced the management of risk.
I believe that this report starts to unpack many of these issues, and it helps us in the long march of improving how we regulate and supervise financial services, unlocking more innovation and, ultimately, more capital to invest in our economy.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests in the register, in particular to my role as a non-executive director of Unity Trust Bank.
It is a privilege to serve on the Financial Services Regulation Committee, and it was a particular privilege to be part of the team producing this report under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The evidence gathering gave committee members a bird’s eye view of the complexities and confusions embodied in current thinking on the role of the financial services industry in the pursuit of growth—everyone’s goal for the UK economy. Hence the need, as the report’s title stresses—and as noble Lords have also raised in the speeches we have heard—for clarity and culture change.
Let me deal with complexities first. It was clear from the evidence that the committee received that financial regulators are still operating under the dark shadow of the global financial crisis of 2008 to 2010. Risk aversion is the cultural norm and stability the dominant objective. Combined, risk aversion and stability do not make for the most dynamic growth platform. The combination has arisen due to the lack of macro- prudential tools in the global financial system. Despite the clear recognition of the macro dangers back in 2010, building in the buffers and shock absorbers that might do the job in global financial markets has proved beyond the capabilities of the international regulators in Basel.
Unable to manage risk macroeconomically, regulators have ramped up microeconomic risk management instead, significantly increasing the scale of risk aversion, the complexity of regulation and the costs of compliance. It was clear in the material presented to us that there was little or no evidence of any clear, well-defined relationship between the plethora of microprudential measures and the resultant level of systemic risk. Unfortunately, financial crises, often linked to innovation in financial products, tend to come out of a clear blue sky, from unexpected directions. Think of the role of credit derivatives in the global crisis: they were heralded as an efficient means of management of systemic risk; they proved to be the engine of systemic collapse. Can the Minister be confident that, in today’s world of anonymous, instantaneous, global crypto trading, the financial system as a whole is safer than it was in 2007? Has the new cost-benefit unit at the PRA addressed this question? If so, can the Minister tell us something of its conclusions?
What has been the cost of all this post-crisis regulation? On a pragmatic level, the report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, noted, calls on the Government to commission an independent study of the administrative costs of compliance and, particularly, the relative costs of compliance as compared with other jurisdictions. It is enormously disappointing that the Government appear not to have taken note of this recommendation. What has been the wider economic impact of post-crisis regulation? It is clear that the proportion of business lending emanating from the UK banking system has fallen from up to 90% in 2007 to less than 50% today. Enforced risk aversion has squeezed business lending out of the banks and into private capital markets. What has been the impact of this migration on systemic risk? I leave that question in the air—a topic for another day.
I turn now from complexity to confusion. Throughout the committee’s investigation, we received evidence that particular institutions, whether banks or building societies, had “invested heavily” in the UK economy. Billions of pounds-worth of investment was itemised, but it soon became evident that the claimed scale of the investment exceeded the scale of gross fixed capital formation in the UK economy—something wrong, surely. The confusion arose because the term “investment” was used in two quite different ways. On one hand, it referred to the financing of the creation of new productive assets—the assets that are counted in the figure for gross fixed capital formation. On the other hand, it referred to the purchase of assets in secondary markets. For example, the representative of a major bank referred to the billions of pounds that his bank had invested in the UK economy, but when asked whether it funded the purchase of new productive assets, he replied, “We don’t do that”. Similarly, both building societies and banks referred to the billions invested in mortgages, yet well over 90% of mortgage lending is for the purchase of assets—houses—that already exist, not for new build. That 90% or more of investment does not fund real investment at all.
A similar mix-up seems to permeate the Government’s calls, via the so-called Mansion House agreement and similar encouragements, for financial institutions, including pension funds, to invest more in riskier equities rather than in the bond markets. But these so-called investments are in secondary markets, not in the creation of new productive assets.
We tried to untangle these confusions in the committee but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, noted, we were not helped by the Bank of England. It told us that it did not have data on the breakdown between investment by financial institutions in secondary markets and investment that actually results in the creation of new productive assets. Of course, there is a relationship between the two—the presence of active secondary markets provides the comfort of liquidity to the flow of funds into real investment—but that relationship is ill defined and opaque.
The Government have recognised that the squeeze on microprudential regulation has gone too far, and the Chancellor has suggested that regulators should be less risk averse. But this raises two vital questions that it would be helpful for the Minister to address in his summing up. First, are the Government confident that an increase in secondary market investment will result in an increase in the funding of real investment in new productive capacity? Secondly, are the Government happy to see an increase in systemic risk as the price of the relaxation of risk-management constraints?
The source of the dilemmas that lie behind these two questions is that the competitiveness and growth objective has been characterised as an issue of risk management, but it is not; it should be seen as an issue of institutional reform. The committee received evidence from a number of medium-sized fintech companies, all of which had successfully raised funding in the order of £35 million to £80 million to scale up their businesses. They had all raised those funds from venture capital firms in the United States. None of them could get their money in the UK.
The venture capital industry in this country—the financial institutions that invest in real investment—is tiny, with total assets under management of between £30 billion and £40 billion, which is less than half of 1% of the total value of assets under management in the UK. That is dwarfed by the venture capital funds in the US, with $700 billion under management, which is around 4% of their total assets under management. It is also dwarfed by the EU, which has venture capital assets in excess of $220 billion. The EU venture capital industry is growing rapidly with the support of European Investment Fund programmes. We desperately need real investment institutions—venture capital firms—similar to those in the US and the EU.
Of course, the Government have promoted the National Wealth Fund as a source of real investment in Britain, but even here there is a lack of radical new direction. Companies applying to the National Wealth Fund for the sort of scale-up funding required by the fintech firms I mentioned earlier are typically asked to show evidence of the value of their endeavour by securing private funding first. Note the wonderful paradox: the National Wealth Fund has been established because private funding has failed to do the job, and its investment decisions are dependent on the decisions of the private funders that have failed to do the job. Without major institutional change that directs financial flows toward real investment, the search for growth will be in vain.
What sort of change do I have in mind? What would I propose as a radical alternative? Regulators today require banks to hold specific proportions of their balance sheets in a defined mixture of instruments designed to maintain necessary regulatory capital and necessary liquidity. In the jargon of the day, it is mandatory. Why not add to these requirements the condition that, to secure a banking licence in the UK, a tiny proportion of the bank’s assets should be committed to venture capital, either through an entity of its own or through an approved venture capital entity? Even this tiny commitment would transform the flow of funds into venture capital investment in this country, and indeed would transform the culture of UK finance. This is certainly a radical suggestion but, without radical institutional reform, it is difficult to envisage the financial services sector playing the dynamic part that is required of it in Britain’s economic renaissance. Clarity and culture change are required.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure and privilege to serve on this committee, not just because I have served under the distinguished and stimulating chairmanship first of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and now of my noble friend Lady Noakes but because of the calibre of the committee. None of the committees I have ever served on, in this or the other House, has assembled so much expertise. Indeed, I shocked my wife by pointing out that I had the least expertise of anybody on the committee. She thought for a moment that I was becoming modest, but it actually is true. This reflects the high level of expertise of everybody else, including the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who actually has expertise of having been a regulator as well as having worked, as many of us have, in the financial sector.
The only benefit of delaying this debate, from when the report was committed until now, is that it falls in the week when we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. This gives me an opportunity to try to bring to bear some of the insights he brought to this issue of regulation. Above all, he was famous for saying:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”.
Of course, competition ensures that businesspeople, in pursuing their self-interest, must satisfy the desires of their customers efficiently.
Self-interest is not our only motive, but it is the strongest, and it is the strongest for all of us, not just those working within business—and that includes regulators. That is why we should recognise that regulators regulate in the interest of regulators, and that interest does not necessarily and always coincide with promoting the growth of either the financial sector that they are regulating or the economy as a whole and its competitiveness, which of course are new secondary objectives. Because of the relative absence of competition between regulators—although there is of course competition between the regulators of different countries, as pointed out by previous speakers—we are tasked, as a committee, with ensuring that the regulators in this sector try to pursue the objectives of promoting growth and competitiveness.
We found a number of symptoms of this factor that regulators regulate in the interest of regulators. For example, time can be of the essence for any company setting up, appointing new management or undertaking some new activity for which it requires approval, but time is much less pressing for regulators. There were complaints that regulators take an inordinate time to approve, for example, board appointments and even appointments of people who have been approved for other financial services companies and are active there. The regulators get around time limits that have been imposed on them for concluding their appointments or approvals by restarting the clock whenever they seek new information.
I have a second example. Other people complain that regulators refuse to answer “what if” questions from people being regulated: “What would happen if I did such and such?” But regulators should not see their task as simply deterring or punishing companies for breaching the rules. They should help them actively comply and tailor their business to make sure that it is legitimate.
Thirdly, we were told that in Singapore the regulators offer a sort of concierge service, as it is called, particularly to companies newly entering the market and those newly entering Singapore itself and unfamiliar with its rules and regulations. In the past there seems to have been a reluctance for our regulators to add that role of helping people to the role of telling them what they cannot do.
Fourthly, we had some rather confused discussions with the FCA about its request that the Government should define the appropriate appetite for risk. Many of us thought that it was for individual investors to decide what risks they were prepared to take with their money. Of course, financial advisers need to make sure that investors whom they are advising do not unwittingly take risks that they could not absorb, and the adviser should tailor their advice to the reasonable risk appetite of those they are advising. But it emerged that the regulators meant that they were worried about the risks to themselves, since the regulator would be blamed if any companies failed or defrauded investors. It seems that they wanted some quota of companies that would be allowed to fail or not be properly regulated and carry out frauds. That was their idea of a risk appetite, rather than the risk appetite of the investor.
For a similar reason, regulators—not just in the financial sector—put too great an emphasis on box-ticking. They are conscious that if something goes wrong, questions will be asked about how assiduous the regulator has been. So the regulator needs to be able to show that it has at least ticked all the boxes, made companies go through all the formal checks et cetera, even if those procedures rarely prevent wrongdoing or financial mismanagement. Ideally, regulators should allocate most effort to supervising companies that are the greatest cause of concern. When I was a financial analyst, we were always aware of some of the symptoms of companies that should be a cause of concern—late accounts, constant changes of accountants or lawyers, dodgy people on the board and so on. It is these to which the regulators should devote most of their attention.
An unusual feature of financial regulation is that since Brexit the regulators have had the task of setting regulations as well as administering them. They have had to review the body of regulation inherited from the EU, at the very least adapting it to make it work where they—the FCA and the PRA, rather than the EU—are now the ultimate regulators, but also revising it to fit the UK’s needs now that we are free to do so.
So far, there have been only relatively modest changes. Why is that? Partly, I think it reflects bureaucratic inertia: people are always happy with the status quo. More significant is that even companies that implemented EU regulations reluctantly and at great cost are not keen on changing it, even to make it simpler, especially if those companies recognise that the more burdensome the regulations, the greater the barrier they are to the entry of new competitors.
Despite there being only modest changes so far to the rules that we inherited from the EU, industry values the changes that have been made and seems to have lobbied successfully to be excluded from the reset of our relationship with the European single market, which is currently going on. The financial sector seems to have no desire to return to EU rules, still less to accept dynamic alignment in future without even having a vote on it. Indeed, the Chancellor herself is implicitly willing to diverge further where it helps and has called on the regulators to seek ways to change the regulations to make them encourage growth and competitiveness.
I recommend that the Government go back to the ministerial briefs that were prepared when these directives and regulations were first negotiated. I had to negotiate some from the very first in the single market, the second banking directive and so on. I cannot remember a brief that did not begin, “We don’t want this directive, Minister, but we can’t avoid it so let’s try to seek some of the following list of amendments to improve it”. If we went back to those briefs, we would find a good working idea of changes that might be needed to make those directives simpler, less burdensome, more appropriate and more growth and competitiveness promoting.
The final point that I want to make echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It became known as the Eatwell thesis and I was its seconder in the committee. It is that the impact on the economy—the growth of the whole economy, not just the financial sector—depends on the amount of lending by banks and investment of the nation’s savings by financial institutions that goes into the creation of new assets, not just the purchase of secondary assets. Sadly, in this country the total volume of lending has not recovered to the previous level since the great financial crisis of 2008, unlike in the United States where, after a couple of years of delay, it returned to that rate of growth. We received conflicting evidence about why this may be. Some said that it is simply that the United States is different from us and the rest of Europe because it has the tech giants and that stimulates the economy and demand for lending. That may be part of the reason, but others said that US banks, especially regional banks, have been regulated with less onerous demands for new capital, which means that they are freer to increase the amount of lending to the real economy. That is a crucial issue, to which we need to return and make sure that, if it is true, we increase the amount of lending that meets the Eatwell criterion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to reflect on the life of Adam Smith. The noble Lord said that Adam Smith wrote that it was not benevolence that ensured that he got his dinner. I point the noble Lord to a book by the Swedish feminist writer Katrine Marçal, Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? Through all his life, not just when he was a child but including when he was writing The Wealth of Nations, the answer was his mother. The benevolence of his mother kept Adam Smith fed all through her life. Perhaps we should think a bit more about benevolence and caring and those aspects of our society. The inability to see that is, of course, one of the great faults of our current mainstream economics.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her clear introduction and I thank her and her committee for their labours, even though I come at the issues covered in this report largely from a different perspective, one that is not represented in the report, although it is widely represented in civil society by organisations such as Positive Money, the Finance Innovation Lab, Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption. While the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I often agree, I have respectfully to disagree with his statement that we all want to see lighter-touch regulation. I do not agree with that statement. I will, however, commend the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for raising concerns about the engines of systemic collapse that we face and his commitment to radical institutional reform that is so urgently needed.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Mayo, who asked whether in the future the economy will be bigger, smaller or the same, I think that there is a far more important question than that. Will the economy—our financial systems, enterprises and activities on these islands—be able to feed us, house us and not threaten the security and stability of our society and state or those of other states on this single, fragile planet on which we all depend? Will the financial sector be harming or threatening us or supporting our well-being and survival?
It is notable that I am one of few speakers in this debate who does not have to declare financial interests or a past record of working in the financial sector. That is a grave pity. I address this comment to noble Lords who are not in the Committee today but perhaps are reading Hansard tomorrow. It is far too important to the state of our country—to the issues of poverty, inequality, housing and food security, which I will come back to—for these issues of financial regulation to be left only to insiders. These are crucial issues for all of society and we need far broader perspectives on them.
On those broader perspectives, during the passage of the now enacted Financial Services and Markets Bill, I spoke at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report against the inclusion of a competitiveness and growth objective for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. In its report, the committee focuses on
“the progress made in driving the regulators”—
the word “driving” is interesting—
“to support growth, both in the financial services sector and, crucially, in the wider UK economy … while maintaining the UK’s position as a global financial centre with a robust financial regulatory system”.
As I said at Second Reading, the final cause or aim—robust regulation—is essentially incompatible with growing the sector. Corruption and fraud are so enmeshed in the system that growing it inevitably means growing financial crime, and our regulatory approach is failing to address that. As I said in Committee, we should aim for a more secure financial sector that provides useful, effective and safe services to individuals and the real economy.
As organisations such as the International Monetary Fund have reported, there is an optimal size for a country’s financial sector, at which it provides the services that an economy and population need. Expansion beyond this size causes damage, increases inequality, boosts criminal behaviour and creates many other ills. Among those ills is what is broadly known as the London laundromat—the dirty and corrupt money of oligarchs and dictators that is being deposited, held and, all too often, washed here in London.
That is not in any of our interests. Nor is the level of risk in this age of shocks—geopolitical, climate, health and more. I note that the headline in today’s Financial Times:
“America has become an agent of chaos in world energy markets”.
And it is not just energy markets, of course. It is telling that, as the Evening Standard reports this week, the new Iranian leader of a theocratic, dictatorial, deadly-to-its-own-people regime, Mojtaba Khamenei, the successor to his father, Ali Khamenei, is said to own high-end Kensington properties through associates. They are apartments situated on the sixth and seventh floors of a building close to Kensington Palace and believed to be worth more than £50 million—although there are also servants’ quarters on the ground floor.
Regarding the current lack of regulation and the level of risk taking, a report in today’s Financial Times is headlined:
“Collapse of UK bridging loan specialist has sent reverberations across Wall St amid fears of weak underwriting standards”.
It refers to the refinancing merry-go-round of Market Financial Solutions, into which Barclays, Jefferies, Santander and many others put hundreds of millions of pounds before it suddenly collapsed last month amid allegations of fraud and double pledging of collateral, with creditors claiming a shortfall of £1.3 billion, and about £283 million unaccounted for.
My focus would be not, as in recommendation 1 from the committee, the cost of compliance but rather the costs and risks of non-compliance. These are practical costs and reputational costs, as the UK seeks to establish its place in a fast-changing, unstable geopolitical environment. I note in that context that the latest Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International shows that Britain has been slipping down the rankings since 2015. We were in seventh place then, and we are now in 20th place, with a score of 70 out of 100. That is a scoring of our financial regulation and how the outside world sees this.
Lest it be thought that I am picking just one example, I note that some other work by Transparency International identified a £40 million central London commercial property held by a company controlled by a trustee who is a member of a Singaporean money laundering gang serving time in jail, as well as £55 million-worth of commercial property owned by a former Malaysian Finance Minister via trusts—he died before a criminal trial into his wealth could take place.
I have identified areas in which I very much disagree with the committee, and I will now pick up some points with which I agree to some degree, particularly that made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: the failure of the financial sector to actually serve the real economy. I am drawing here particularly on excellent work by Positive Money and the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned: only 6.6% of bank lending last year went towards productive investment in the real economy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
As I was saying, only 6.6% of bank lending last year went towards productive industries in the real economy— I am basing this on Positive Money. The group used the Bank of England’s annual money and credit statistics to find that net lending to productive industries increased by just £9 billion last year, compared with £52 billion for mortgages and £68 billion for the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
To break that down, lending to electricity, gas and water industries made up more than half of the increase among all the productive industries. I have to slightly question the “productive” label, given that we know that the privatised water sector in particular has seen a huge amount of payments out in terms of dividends and fat-cat pay and has continued to be loaded down with debt. There is a question over how productive that actually is. Manufacturers and transportation firms did indeed see a small uptick in credit, which is encouraging, but lending to the wholesale and retail trade fell by £1.8 billion—a decline for the fourth year running. In these figures—this picks up points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—mortgages accounted for 57% of bank lending and the FIRE sectors for 28% of lending. We are seeing a real misallocation of resources if we come back to the questions with which I started: is the financial sector making sure that we can feed ourselves, house ourselves and be secure in a very uncertain world?
One of the other things that this is very much associated with, as Positive Money often draws attention to, is rising inequality. For people who own assets, this lending funds further increases in the price of those assets, while people without assets are left even further behind. In fact, it is interesting that mortgages are the only type of lending that has seen significant increases in outstanding credit since the last financial crisis. This is one of the main reasons why property prices have skyrocketed. It is of course very clearly interlinked with the housing crisis that is affecting so many millions of people.
I will conclude with a point that I do not believe anyone else has raised but that I think is important. It is about the importance of financial education, and I entirely agree with the committee in its recommendation on this. I note this with regard to the Department for Education, as there is now an independent curriculum review. This surely has to be part of that review in focusing on ensuring that our schools provide education for life, to help people to live rather than just for exams or just for jobs. I also agree with the recommendations— I think the Government broadly agreed too—that the Treasury must work with the FCA and the industry to support adult education about finance. There is a huge inequality of arms in the information that consumers have when they are faced with the financial sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, raised the issue of cryptocurrencies. That is perhaps a particularly extreme area where we are seeing the targeting of younger people and people from minoritised communities, but, for everybody, many feel a real fear when confronted with having to deal with the financial sector, particularly online. Increasingly, of course, most dealings are online. This is something that stresses people out. They worry about being ripped off or about being the subject of fraud—of course, we are the global fraud capital. Giving the public—consumers—the tools to try to somewhat level the playing field with the financial sector is a crucial point on which I can entirely agree with the committee.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Noakes for hosting this debate. I also thank the committee for the quite long inquiry it has done for us and for its report. The creation of the committee was an important outcome of the Financial Services and Markets Act, and this might be a moment to reflect on the importance of this committee in holding regulators to account, as well as its findings in this, its first report. It is particularly welcome that it uses its first report to look at the growth and competitiveness agenda because, if we remember, that was contentious during the passage of the Bill and, at the time, the regulators pushed back quite consistently. It is helpful for us to start with that aspect of the Act. Of course, things have changed because the Government themselves have made growth and competitiveness quite an important objective, so the Act fits with the Government’s own objective.
I greatly enjoyed reading the report, despite its enormous length. It attracted an exceptional cast of English characters—regulators, parliamentarians and civil servants—all of whom performed their role before the committee to perfection. In a way, the report reads like a play, each of these characters speaking their parts. We had the deputy governor of the Bank of England saying that the Bank would consult on MREL but that, on the whole, there should be only gradual change. The deputy governor for prudential regulation pointed out to the committee that it was unhelpful to compare the UK to other jurisdictions, that risk weightings did not affect credit into the economy and that the regulators’ overall risk position did not need to be changed but that there might be a need for a little— I had to check and it is at paragraph 338—“decluttering”. That is a lovely word from our central bank. That was the position of the regulators.
The committee heard from the former lord mayor, who said that we should look to Singapore. He reminded the committee that there were huge Asian markets. The former City Minister talked about the amount that regulation is preoccupied with net zero and diversity. The former Secretary to the Treasury talked about the FOS problem, which has not come up yet, but the City Minister at that time said that the FOS situation was going to be sorted out. It has not yet been sorted out, so we have a problem in car lending at the moment. So the regulators all said what might be expected and, from their feedback, you might expect no change.
The committee also heard from some quite senior bank executives. It heard a particularly good set of feedback from a retiring bank chairman, who had been a regulator himself. He said that the regulatory costs on banks were too high and that the cost of the ring-fence was too high. That was quite helpful feedback; he is retiring, so he says what he believes, and the ring-fence might be something that the committee will look at in the future.
The chief executive of the country’s largest building society pointed out that the leverage ratio restricts credit for him and for the amount of lending that it can do—no surprises there. The chairman of Aberdeen said that people should be investing more, perhaps with Aberdeen—perhaps there are no surprises there. The American insurance executive said, very helpfully, that the cost of regulation in the UK was higher than in any other of the hundred markets in which the company operated. That would obviously be disappointing for the regulators, but they had a friend because the executive from JP Morgan—a firm quite famous in London regulatory circles for the epic fiasco of the “London Whale” credit derivatives blow-up—said that the regulators were excellent and very professional. She had no problems with her regulators. More than that, in words surely her own, she said that the regulators could not be expected to look after the other 42,000 firms as well as they look after JP Morgan.
So we had very useful feedback and a good survey of where the regulation was a year ago. As we meet now, we might reflect on what has changed or what has happened since the publication of the report. To the credit of this committee, as well as the Government—but, for now, let us say that it is to the credit of this committee—quite a bit has changed. The MREL requirement was changed by September, in time for the letter from the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so there was change on MREL after all. The leverage ratio threshold—this is the amount of bank deposits when the threshold kicks in—moved from £50 billion to £70 billion in November. That directly addressed the question of the leverage ratio.
Then, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, the remarkable change is that the Bank cut the UK’s tier 1 capital ratio from 14% to 13%. This was the first cut since 2008 and it was an enormous change, because the Bank had not been very keen to do it and there was no hint that this was coming in any of the submissions that the committee heard. But the Bank’s tier 1 capital ratio was in fact changed.
As we meet now, it is remarkable to reflect that this committee, which was set up as required under the Financial Services Act to supervise the regulators, or rather to hold them to account, has raised issues on which there has been change. Some other issues have not been addressed yet; we mentioned the FOS, the car lending problem and the ring-fence problem, which, despite the Skeoch review, is still there and very expensive. Whether the ring-fence makes any difference is quite unknown; it is not even clear whether bail-inable capital in MREL makes any difference, but that is a discussion for another day.
Other issues are raised in the report, but the capital changes that the report has raised and then got changed mark an important moment and an achievement of this committee. That is to the credit of the committee and the Government. I thank the committee for its work, for the credit that extends into the UK economy following these changes, for looking into the cost of regulation and for holding powerful regulators to account.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest. By background, I am an investor, but I teach a course and run a centre at Cambridge that focuses on the purpose of finance, thinking about what are the aspects of the finance industry that allow it to perform its purpose well. Of course, regulation is one of them. I am particularly struck that this committee has not fallen into the trap of “either it is a market or it is regulation”. Regulations are there to try to make markets work well so that customers know what there are getting, suppliers know what they are committing to and the public are protected.
The interesting thing about the secondary legislation on the PRA and the FCA is that that is what it is trying to get to. It is trying to get to: “We want to measure the regulator by how well the finance industry is performing its function of being able to lend to and support the British economy”. That seems a step forward. Of course, it is tricky to do this because it is not just regulation and it is not just markets. There are also institutions, infrastructure, professionalism, good will, incentives, technology, information, branding and ethics. We do not all agree on that, as we saw in the debate between the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about how all those things work. Regulation tends to be rather rigid, whereas all the other factors—technology, for example—are changing quite quickly. Professionalism is something that changes depending on the circumstances to which it is addressing itself.
We used to have lots of self-regulation, which, of course, Adam Smith was very much against, and that has now changed to more and more government regulation. I think it was Andy Haldane who noted that in 1980 there was one regulator for every 11,000 people in the finance industry and, by 2011, that had changed to one for every 300. By the way, that is for every regulator—there are however many people in compliance. I rather like Robin Ellison. He is a senior pensions lawyer at Pinsent Mason who said that there were 3,000 pages of pensions regulation in 1990 and that, last year, there were 180,000 pages, which is three to 180.
We have been playing a sort of regulatory whack-a-mole. Whenever anything goes wrong, we put in another regulation. We built this Jenga tower of regulation. Sometimes you can take a block out of the tower when you play the game of Jenga, but sometimes, if you take too many blocks out, the whole tower collapses. I also worry that, if there is too much regulation, you leave the professionalism of the industry behind because people will say that, if it is not in the regulations, they can do it, and that is not a good way of thinking about how you run a finance industry. I think it was Laozi, the Chinese philosopher, who said more rules and regulations, more thieves and robbers.
That is why the secondary objectives are interesting: they are trying to focus back on what is the purpose of this industry, and the purpose of this industry is to serve the outside economy. It seems to me that this is not in the gift of the regulator, nor, to be honest, do we really understand the relationship between the finance industry and the growth in an economy or the role of the regulator in creating a successful finance industry. It is a great idea to have as many international comparators as we possibly can, but when you lack that sort of information it is awfully difficult to know where you are going.
It would be great to have someone who would tell you the risk appetite. I think it was twice in October 2008 that the move on the New York Stock Exchange was something that, according to the risk models, would have happened only once in the history of the world. Indeed, I think in one case it was once in the history of the universe. Unfortunately, there we were in October 2008. So, I think we need to be a little bit careful. I even wonder whether we should be cutting the Government a bit of slack so that they do not give us quick answers now, but give us proper answers long- term on how we are going to make this work.
On the points that have been made about primary investment, for example—the Eatwell criterion—I hate to have the regulators asking more questions, but surely we need to know where this money that is protected is going.
We need some definitions. I think there are definitions of the things we want the finance industry to do. Here are some basic ones: we need someone to keep our money safe; we need someone to help us transact; we need to be able to share risks; and, critically, we need to be able to take money from point A, where it is, and invest it in point B, where it is needed. If we look at the academic studies of how much the finance industry has improved in taking money from point A, where it is, to point B, where it is needed, over the past 80 years and how much the cost of doing that has gone down, the answer is very little indeed.
If the finance industry depends on trust, we have a huge problem. Ten years ago, the Bank of England— I think it was—did a study of British people to find one word that described their feelings about the direction of the finance industry. They chose “corrupt”. If we want companies to invest, they need to be convinced that the finance industry will not do to them what happened after the global financial crisis, where, as we all know, small and medium-sized companies were extremely badly treated.
What we have got is regulation on regulation. Some 42% of the fines issued to companies were to people in the finance industry, which is 9% of GDP. Yet, if we could get this right, the prize would be huge. In 2023, NatWest was involved in the issuance of £83 billion of green bonds. That outscales anything that the Government are doing. However, it needs to be the whole system. I am concerned that all our banks are targeting a return on equity above 15%. That surely is restricting the amount of money that will be available to the real economy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, said, none of this will work if we have a standoff in trust between the regulator and the people who are trying to provide these services. I have one simple example. It is really difficult to open a bank account in Britain. I do not know whether noble Lords have tried it. If you ask the bank why this is, it will say, “Oh, we have all these regulations about knowing your customer, and we have those because we’re trying to stop money laundering”. That sounds fine, but in Bangladesh, if you have 10 taka—10 pence—you can open a bank account. I was talking to the governor of the Bank of Bangladesh and asked him how they manage to stop money launderers opening accounts. He said, “David, I don’t know too many successful money launderers who have only 10 pence in their account. Obviously, if somebody puts £10,000 through, we will do something about it”.
I note that there are folk within the finance industry who are trying to respond to all this. For example, Scottish Financial Enterprise under Sandy Begbie says that it will offer basic financial services to all those who want such services, and that this will include financial education and financial literacy materials. I wonder whether there is a regulator who is saying thank you, and a regulator who is keeping tabs on whether that happens.
I will finish optimistically, if I may. I talked about fines in the UK. One bank in America has been fined four times more than the entire British finance industry during the same period. Frankly, the regulation of finance in America is now felt by many to be very erratic indeed. In the European Union, the regulation feels suffocating, particularly on information. Surely this is an opportunity for the UK to do something to have an industry that fulfils its purpose well and is competitive as a result.
Let us not try to rush at this. I see that the Government have said that they want to embed these new secondary obligations and base them on independent evidence of how the financial services industry best serves the economy. That seems like a good thing that we should be pushing, not just as a destination but as a journey. Laozi’s most famous quote is:
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.
We are already well along the journey, and the committee has done a wonderful job of taking us a few miles further. I look forward to this debate continuing, with reform appropriately administered by our regulators as we look to the future.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I shall first declare my interests. I am on the board of a crypto data business and have investments in companies regulated by the FCA and the PRA. More usefully for this debate, I ran a regulated asset management firm for 15 years, a job that I enjoyed greatly at the beginning, when I was able to offer my investors from all over the world a fabulous and, for us, very profitable service, but, by the end of my time, I became dominated by compliance with absurd rules designed by people with limited to no knowledge of the financial services sector who have caused untold damage to the lives of our citizens, all under the guise of a misunderstood notion of risk reduction and consumer safety.
That is why the debate today is so important, and I congratulate the members of the committee for writing one of the best reports from the House of Lords that I have ever read. I am delighted that, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, suggested, some effect has been achieved, something has been done. The growth mandate, which is the main focus of the report, which I supported, by the way, as a Minister for Investment, was fought by everyone in the system who I met. I think even the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was cautious about the opportunity, sadly. It was felt that it would create untold risks, that it would distract the regulators from their task of ensuring that the consumer is treated properly and that it was not appropriate—that dreaded word. However, the people in charge should be focusing on the growth requirement every waking minute; that is their purpose. Finance is only about growth.
Of course, we need regulations and registrations for the market to function. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, gave some exceptionally good explanations around that. The rest is the hard bit, and it is the bit that the leadership of the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and, to some extent, the Government, are dodging, as the report clearly demonstrates.
Imagine an FCA that was judged by how many new firms came here from abroad to set up. The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, gave examples of banks that have withdrawn from this market. I ask noble Lords to consider, if I may call on their imaginations, a regulator that acts as a service to business rather than a hindrance. When I set up my office in Singapore, how did the MAS, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, treat us? Did it ask for endless forms to be completed or say that it could not say how long our application would take to process but maybe six months, or a year? No. It sent two delightful people to our office in London. They helped us to navigate the documentation. They even suggested schools for the children of the staff moving out there and offered, unbelievably, some funds to manage from the Singapore Government. Can anyone here seriously think that the FCA or the PRA would do anything like that? It is a shame that they would not.
This report also shows something extremely worrying, which is that they have created a culture of fear. Firms, like some poor downtrodden citizen of a dictatorship, asked to be anonymous when discussing issues with the committee. They are frightened that if they criticise these people, they will be given some type of regulatory punishment beating. I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who made that astonishing comment—today, in this country. In my view, this is unacceptable and shameful. From this House, I demand an answer to this awful culture that these people have created. I ask them to note that we are not frightened of them, and that they work for us.
Let me turn to some of the specifics of their failures. By the way, we in this House must share the blame, as should my own party, which presided over so much of this damaging nonsense. The idea that no one can die and no one can lose money is what destroys civilisations. My first point is MiFID, which was a UK, not a European, idea. We tried to blame the Europeans, but it came from this country; it came from the FCA or its predecessor. It was thought of by people with no knowledge of how research is generated or paid for or its vital importance to the market. They felt that companies were charging too much, as if that is something that a Government should question. We want companies to make money so long as the market is competitive, since the market sets the price. I know that it is a bizarre and outdated idea. Adam Smith’s 250-year anniversary seems to have been forgotten—but not, I am pleased to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley; I am not sure that his dinner will be cooked by anyone at this rate. MiFID destroyed the small cap market. For those listening from the regulators—I bet no one is, by the way—that means that small companies cannot get coverage from brokers, so they cannot raise money. So we cannot grow our businesses, and they have to go abroad for capital. Does that sound familiar?
RDR is the next atrocity. This onerous regime governing advice that can be given to individuals is now so complicated and expensive that millions cannot afford to receive proper advice. The effect is that many people have no idea what to do, so either do not save or drift into non-regulated areas such as cryptocurrencies.
Not separating retail investors from institutional investors was covered well by the report. By our not properly separating these two regimes, specialist firms—which through their number and size reduce, not increase, risks to the system—cannot make their products easily available to other institutions and face the same burdens as a multinational bank.
The senior managers regime is a sclerotic absurdity designed to make us feel good about ourselves but merely discourages companies from managing their staff in a flexible and timely fashion. It thus increases risks for the system, because they cannot get the right people in the right places.
Banking regulation has been well covered in the debate. Through the fear of mis-lending, we have now prevented banks lending to businesses, especially domestic banks. This lack of capital has severely hurt our economy, stopped people getting mortgages and created a far larger unregulated credit market that could blow up at any time. I am sure that the officials who run the PRA and FCA say, like Captain Smith of the “Titanic”, “But no one ever thanked us for the icebergs we missed”, but they are creating an ever-bigger berg into which we will crash unless something is done. All Labour needs to do is tweak these requirements for capital, as we have heard, to make them sensible. It would create untold economic growth—that is my gift to the Minister, if he wishes to receive it.
Another terrible act, which I am afraid was probably thought of by some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, is the concept of consumer duty. That too was well covered in the report, but I do not believe it has been discussed today. It is truly the worst of all—a tortuous process where a company has to work out how a user many parts down a chain may be advantaged or disadvantaged by a product or service. Every firm I know already has such a duty embedded in its mandate; it is how business works. But these days we love holding everyone to account so that blame can be apportioned if something goes wrong.
The problem is that things change—or, in another phrase, go wrong. Capital needs to be reallocated to the highest point of return for humans to progress—that is the beauty of life—and trying to prevent that is truly selfish and foolhardy. After all, that is what diversification is for: it is what risk and return are, which seems to elude the regulatory environment and the people creating these rules.
People, by the way—this is the kicker as I come to a conclusion—are also, and should be, responsible for making their own decisions. Things such as the consumer duty will remove further from the citizen good savings products and advice. The compliance costs will increase, reducing profitability for the sector and capital for growing companies. Documentation will increase in size and complexity, yet again befuddling us all, who now just click “yes” to everything. Dangerously, people will think they are protected from losing money or their house simply because of the size of the disclaimer that they have clicked, so they will act with less caution and rationality, spelling worse crises than before.
I am afraid to say that the fact is we have unsuitable people running these organisations. I have been specific in not naming anyone because I do not think that is fair. Ultimately they are civil servants—for whom I have the greatest respect. But they have no real experience —or any experience at all, actually—of running financial services firms, and their priorities are not growth but, in my mind, their own convenience and self-justification. We have seen examples of that in their responses to this report.
We in the UK are in an emergency. Unless the Government, we in this House and most especially the regulators take note of the importance of the growth mandate, we will drift further from being a middle power to becoming an emerging one, poor and defenceless. It is an unkind thing to do to us. So I ask the regulators responsible to wake up today. I am afraid I ask them to replace their leadership; I know that is a strong expectation and unlikely to happen, but it is essential that the responsibility borne by these individuals for the acts that they have committed is made clear. I ask them to correct their course of action and focus on growth and, importantly, how to serve the businesses in the same way the MAS serves the financial sector in Singapore. We forget the amazing people who work in these organisations. We need to regulate to make the financial services industry in the UK not contained, small or limited but the greatest in the world. That is why I commend this excellent report to the House.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I come from a different perspective from many of the people who have spoken today, because I am approaching this debate from the perspective of spending nearly two years on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards following the financial crash of 2008, which was due to credit and derivative manipulation, much of it either deliberate or, frankly, due to people casting a blind eye. That was at the same time as the Libor scandal, which probably took away from creditors across the world something in excess of a quadrillion dollars through 10 years of consistent lying to the setting of the benchmark, and, frankly, at a time when mis-selling to individuals was on an industrial scale.
I quote from the final report from that committee:
“Policy-makers in most areas of supervision and regulation need to work out what is best for the UK, not the lowest common denominator of what can most easily be agreed internationally. There is nothing inherently optimal about an international level playing field in regulation. There may be significant benefits to the UK as a financial centre from demonstrating that it can establish and adhere to standards significantly above the international minimum”.
In taking evidence from those involved in causing the crash and knowingly manipulating Libor, it was consistently apparent that outperforming international competitors and generating higher profits were the two core motives, and these motives look very much like the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective.
In that context, the work of the Financial Services Regulation Committee is crucial, especially as, post-Brexit, the Conservative Government chose to transfer virtually all meaningful control of the financial sectors to the regulators by embedding that control in regulation and guidance, neither of which can be amended by Parliament. I am a strong supporter of the FSRC but I want to make sure that it understands where and why all this began.
The report that we have received reflects ongoing tensions between financial stability and an industry and some politicians who want the leash off. I completely understand the frustration with undue complexity and uncertainty of regulation—that helps no one. I also understand the need to reflect the different characteristics of different entities in regulation, and some of the discussion around MREL has addressed that. I am convinced that parts of our regulators are often slow to respond. I want to make the point that regulation is not cast in stone, but improving and customising regulation should not be a shorthand for deregulation.
I read in evidence to the FSRC that deregulation is the industry agenda—and the tool for its attack is the secondary objective.
Let us look at the risk that has been reintroduced into the financial system under the secondary objective rubric. I will give a few examples, as did the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham: the PRA’s easing of bank capital requirements; the undermining of the ring-fencing regime—there is a consultation in place but undoubtedly this will be a consequence; removal of the bankers’ bonus cap; significant limiting of the senior managers and certification regime—I am especially exercised by the removal of individual accountability; the reduction in the risk margin for insurance companies and the expansion of matching adjustment eligibility to cover highly illiquid assets; and the Mansion House Accord to put 10% of the pensions of low-income people and workers into high-risk, illiquid assets without their consent. With these changes, we see the industry, and this includes the banks, release its animal spirits—exactly what everybody wanted—and they have galloped, at quite some speed, into the private equity markets, often with little understanding of the assets.
There have been numerous red flags. On 6 March, BlackRock finally limited redemption of private credit funds as outflows continued to swell. Today, JP Morgan is marking down the loan portfolios of private credit groups. Most of this happened before the Iran war. It will accelerate with the Iran war, and in a way, which is incredibly sad, one of the side effects—perhaps we ought to regard it as beneficial but I do not want a war to create this—is that it may burst a bubble before it gets even more out of control.
While I can see the return to a much-increased level of risk, I cannot see the return to growth in either the financial sector or the broader economy. That is what is supposed to follow—you deregulate, the growth comes —but I cannot find that growth. We gave away our utter dominance of the European financial sector with Brexit, not in one step but salami slice by salami slice. The effect is somewhat masked because people always compare us with individual financial centres across the EU, which is of course functioning as a network of multiple financial centres, so we do not see how our competitive position has diminished very significantly. I am truly anxious that in June 2028 the EU will reduce its recognition of UK central counterparties because by then it will have achieved much of its own clearing capacity, and so much high-level finance co-locates with CCPs. You cannot deregulate your way out of a fundamental issue like that.
Frankly, we cannot deal with our biggest problems through deregulation. Financing scale-ups will not happen because we have made some kind of regulatory change to financial institutions; the problem we are dealing with here is one of huge market failure. In a sense, this picks up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. There is no point kidding ourselves that we can fuss with regulation and deliver the money that is needed for scale-up.
Neither do any of the rule changes suggest that we can cure our other fundamental problem: our lack of a layer of community banks, which were once the Captain Mainwarings of this world—the backbone of finance for local, small businesses. I do not mean those which intend to be unicorns but those which want to grow just a little faster than organically, which are the backbone of our local communities and economy. Dealing with these market failures goes way beyond fiddling with the risk weightings of banks’ capital holdings. That is regulatory intervention already.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned that added to banking licences could be a requirement that banks fund some money for VCs. I have long argued—it has never got anywhere—that we ought to attach to banking licences a requirement that major banks fund people who can deliver that community banking profile. Exactly that happened in the United States under the Community Reinvestment Act, which has grown a community sector that, today, is the complete backbone of small businesses and the US economy. When I last looked at that sector, which was zero in 1970, it had something in excess of $300 billion in loan assets to small businesses. It is absolutely critical and it has been used by US Presidents to make sure that the US was able to survive two major economic crises.
The report asserts that
“regulators have made progress in advancing the secondary objective”.
I can see where they have advanced the objective of deregulation, but I cannot see the growth. We are pulling on a lever to create growth that does not really work. Professor Kern Alexander said to the FSRC:
“The gap we have is that, in many countries where they have been using secondary objectives for 25 or 30 years, there is no policy conclusion about whether they work, how they are applied or how the secondary objectives are defined”.
Of course it is right that Parliament and the FSRC scrutinise and question the regulators on their performance but, if we think that the answer to growth in the real economy is deregulation, we are looking in the wrong place. Its impact is marginal at best; when it is handled badly, it is a recipe for a cycle of crises. Regulation is a financial stability and anti-abuse tool. When we seek growth, as we should, we need to find other, real levers: investment, skills and productivity—to name but three.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her typically clear and telling introduction as the new chair of the committee, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—now our distinguished Lord Speaker and the masterful previous chair—and other members and the staff of the Financial Services Regulation Committee for their work. The committee has done a great job; it tackled a very important question, which hangs over one of the great problems we face at the moment: the sluggishness of economic growth since the financial crisis, exacerbated by the present Government’s actions on employment, tax and energy.
How did we get here? We got here by a predictable overreaction to the financial crisis of 2008 and by the failure of many to recognise that regulation itself has a cost, particularly in compliance. The more of it there is, the greater the cost.
Moreover, the costs of regulatory failure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, concentrated on, are more obvious than the costs of regulatory overreach. The former leads to people losing money in criminal or near-criminal enterprises, while the latter leads to lost opportunities and competitiveness, and is much less visible. The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, gave a telling example from her experience of Barclays’ departure from its international businesses, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, described the shift of fintech finance to US venture capital.
The performance of the UK financial sector since the financial crisis suggests that excess caution may be even more costly over time. It is likely that the country has paid a high price over the last 15 years for overregulation of the financial sector, so let us hope that my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford is right in saying that the secondary objective is improving things. It was introduced by the last Government, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Johnson for helping us to make it a reality. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, came from a different perspective, but there is quite a lot of common ground on things like complexity, uncertainty and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the fact of absent growth.
That brings me on to the role of the FCA, the PRA and the Financial Ombudsman. The report makes uncomfortable reading for these organisations. The truth is that, while the first job of a regulator is to protect consumers, that is insufficient. If they act as a break on innovation and growth, as they appear to have done, their net contribution to national life is much reduced and could even be negative.
The problems identified in the report are numerous, and the committee has done well to cover so many, although perhaps it would have had even more impact with a shorter report. I commend the then Minister Emma Reynolds MP, now transported to higher things, for the five-point summary of objectives in her letter to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of 2 September. However, she missed out two essential objectives for UK growth: reducing regulation, bureaucracy and the attendant compliance costs, and improving and prioritising financial education.
Because of the length of the report, I shall limit myself to three areas. I begin with the regulatory culture. What emerges clearly from the report is the existence of a damaging “culture of risk aversion” within the UK financial regulators. I note that the findings of the Fingleton report on nuclear regulation were very similar. We have identified a pernicious trend.
The noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, provided some telling examples, showing the need for culture transformation and mentioning the concerning difference in candour between private and public hearings—a point also picked up by my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston.
In the years since the financial crisis, the regulatory framework has increasingly tilted towards the prevention of risk at almost any cost. While the intention behind this shift is understandable, the report suggests that it has had significant consequences for how regulation operates in practice. That culture of caution has shaped regulatory behaviours in ways that translate into tangible duties and processes for firms.
Firms describe being inundated with extensive information requests from regulators. Regulators themselves are said to adopt highly cautious approaches to approvals and supervisory decisions. Perhaps most concerningly, the report suggests that the environment has begun to erode trust between regulators and the firms that they supervise. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, introduced a wonderful new concept of building a Jenga tower of regulation. He reminded us of the cost of regulatory whack-a-mole and the huge difficulty in opening a bank account in the UK; I have also had experience of this. All of this creates a relationship that is defensive rather than collaborative. Something needs to be done.
The second area that I will therefore address is complexity. The complexity of the regulatory system has developed as a result of the broader culture. It is telling that financial services represent such a large component of GDP—9%, or more if you add legal and other related services—but, as we have heard, their contribution to output and productivity growth has fallen behind the rest of the economy. This growth-sapping complexity has to change.
We have spoken about the “twin peaks” system covering the FCA and the PRA, but there are many other bodies, all with their own acronyms, forming the regulatory landscape that firms have to navigate. We have the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Payment Systems Regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Financial Reporting Council. All these organisations constantly try to prove the need for their existence, so the report’s finding that there is extensive regulatory overlap is not a surprise.
This is in stark contrast to the helpful concierge service operated in Singapore, which my noble friend Lord Lilley referenced and which my noble friend Lord Johnson has enjoyed. My noble friend Lord Lilley also told us how US banks were freer than UK banks to increase their lending to the real economy. We heard from my noble friend Lord Altrincham that the CEO of Marsh McLennan UK said that UK regulation is the “most expensive” in his wide experience—that was worrying. This has had a marked effect on firms already operating in the UK, which are required to direct capital away from productive investment into filling out forms, sifting through regulations, communicating to these organisations and so on. They are also worried about getting the blame for failure, as my noble friend Lord Lilley emphasised.
The other effect, which is harder to measure, is the chilling effect that this has had on international investment in the UK. Firms operating around the world take one look at the web of regulations and take their business elsewhere. The economy grew by just 0.1% in the final quarter of 2025, and across the whole of 2025 it expanded by 1.3%. The OBR has lowered its 2026 growth forecast to an anaemic 1.1%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, said. To say that this is growth in any meaningful sense is laughable. Growth must be an important priority for regulators, and the report provides the Government with some useful suggestions: reduce regulatory overlap, strive properly to understand the burden regulation imposes on business and perhaps help them, improve the spread of authorisation processes, and provide simpler rules for smaller domestic banks. My noble friend Lady Noakes was right to point out that the Basel rules applied across the UK are aimed at international banks, so small and medium-sized banks have a hard time here. I know this because I served as a director of Secure Trust Bank, and I therefore welcome the cut in tier 1 capital in December last year from 14% to 13%—that is a good development.
My third area is financial literacy and education. The committee expresses real concern about the chronically low levels of financial literacy and numeracy among adults in the UK. The consequences of this are far-reaching. Too many people lack confidence in financial markets. Many shy away from investing and, as a result, savings often remain concentrated in low-yield products. That means that neither they as savers nor our wider economy benefit from the sort of capital that could be unlocked if people were more confident in investing their money. Traditional advice is often too expensive, and guidance is not always available. Those who stand to gain the most from it are frequently the least able to obtain it and indeed are fearful of financial products—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I come together on this recommendation, albeit from different perspectives. If we are serious about building a stronger investment culture, financial education cannot begin when people first open a pension or savings account. It must begin in our primary schools. By embedding financial literacy in schools and universities, we can equip future generations with the confidence they need to invest wisely.
There seems to be a degree of agreement that the mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, which could be used from 2030, will have a chilling effect. They could harm growth and deter investment, especially from overseas. As the Official Opposition, we believe that that should be abandoned when the Bill comes to Report next week.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, which go beyond the excellent questions from my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, although I am less sure about his idea of a new kind of mandation in respect of venture capital—or indeed about the version of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which would be the mandation of a community element. That would mean new rules and new additions to the Jenga tower.
My questions to the Minister are the following. First, it is encouraging to note that the Government appear to acknowledge that regulation of the financial sector has gone too far. Will the Government continue to press for change in the direction advised by the committee? Secondly, will the PRA be asked to consider setting bank capital requirements for SME banks in a more proportionate way, rather than slavishly following Basel III? Thirdly, what concrete steps will the Government take to improve the competitiveness of the City of London, compared to centres such as New York, Milan and Singapore? Fourthly, will the Government think again about benchmarking—perhaps even a one-off benchmarking report—to look at our performance against our competitors overseas? The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, talked about that. It may be difficult, but it must be done, given that competitiveness is a key part of the secondary objective.
The UK faces a real and pressing challenge when it comes to economic growth. Growth, we are told, will be the central pillar of this Government’s economic strategy in the years ahead, and I have welcomed that on many occasions. Although their achievements so far have been disappointing, I encourage them not to give up but to try harder, especially in the financial services sector, which has contributed so much to growth historically. I very much hope that the Government will look carefully at the suggestions contained in this powerful report, and at the further suggestions made today, as they develop their fiscal and economic strategy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing this report and to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the outgoing chair and now the Lord Speaker. Having been on the receiving end of some of his incisive questions in the Chamber, I can just imagine what he was like as the chair of the committee when it was taking evidence. I also thank all noble Lords for their comments and contributions, which were thorough, thoughtful, instructive and thoroughly knowledgeable.
I reiterate the strong alignment between this committee’s conclusions in the report and the Government’s perspective and actions. The Government are committed to ensuring that the secondary growth and competitiveness objectives are comprehensively embedded in both the PRA and the FCA, and we strongly welcome the thorough and incisive scrutiny of the committee, holding both the Government and the regulators to account.
As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in a letter to the committee of 2 September:
“There is strong alignment between your recommendations and the wide-ranging package of reforms announced by the Chancellor”.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, is right that we are on a journey on this—this is not our final destination. Things are going to develop and evolve, and it will be great to continue this dialogue.
A considerable amount of ground has been covered today. I will try to address specific points raised by noble Lords in the time remaining. Before I do, I will speak about the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy and the actions that the Government are taking forward to facilitate the growth of the sector and to ensure that it is supporting growth in the wider economy. I will do my best to answer all the questions but, if I cannot or if there are some that I have not answered, I will write to noble Lords.
Since the launch of the strategy in July 2025, the Government have worked with the regulators to deliver key milestones, including: launching the Office for Investment: Financial Services, a dedicated concierge service for international financial services firms seeking to establish or grow their presence within the UK, which several noble Lords mentioned; launching the joint FCA and PRA scale-up unit, which will make it simpler for scaling firms to get timely responses and expert support; commissioning the Financial Services Skills Commission to produce a report on skills needs; and the FCA approving both the London Stock Exchange and JP Jenkins to operate PISCES platforms. I believe the first trading event will take place by the end of this month.
In addition, the Treasury and financial regulators are working hard to support delivery of the Government’s regulation action plan, where the Government have committed to cut the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. The Treasury is continuing to hold the regulators to account, including through biannual ministerial reviews of the regulators’ performance.
Noble Lords have pressed the Government on the evidence linking growth in financial services to growth in the wider economy. The Government agree on the importance of having a substantial evidence base. That is why, in developing the financial services strategy, the Government took steps to build this evidence base, setting out their analysis and methodology in the strategy’s technical annex.
The Government remain committed to building this evidence base and continue to work with industry, academics and other public authorities to do so, including through regulator-led research projects and competitions. It remains a high priority for the Treasury’s Areas of Research Interest, its published list of the main research questions facing the department.
The committee has highlighted specialist lenders and their importance in providing lending to SMEs. The Government share the committee’s ambition regarding the role of the finance sector in funding the real economy. Specialist lending plays a role in supporting competition, resilience and choice. The Government have taken steps to ensure that the regulatory framework supports this, working closely with the Bank to explore further reforms to the ring-fencing regime to make lending to innovative SMEs more commercially viable. Through the Basel III.1 reforms, the Government have also worked closely with the PRA to ensure that overall capital requirements for SME lending do not increase so that the sector can continue to support UK SMEs and help them to grow and be successful.
The Government have a strong relationship with the financial service regulators, and they are working together closely so that the Government can hold them to account for delivering the shared growth mission. Remit letters and ongoing engagement at all levels allow the Government to ensure that the regulators have appropriate regard to the Government’s economic policy, particularly the growth mission. There is a very strong level of engagement and a shared ambition between the Government and the regulators to support growth, and we will continue to work closely together to deliver on this shared ambition.
The Government agree with the committee that it is important to have metrics to monitor the regulators’ impact on growth. The regulators have now published two years’ worth of data against the growth metrics. It is vital that the regulators are held to sufficiently challenging targets for determining authorisation applications while also maintaining robust processes. That is why the Government have proposed new authorisation deadlines and will legislate for them when parliamentary time allows. I am pleased to see that the regulators are already starting to report against these new deadlines, with the FCA doing so in February and the PRA doing so very soon. The UK regulators’ reporting framework is among the most comprehensive in the world. I assure the committee that the Government will continue to scrutinise their performance and how it is changing over time, and I invite Parliament and other stakeholders to do likewise.
I turn to some of the questions that were asked. I will do my best to cover them all, and if I do not, we will write to the relevant noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of productivity and finance. The Government recognise the need to increase the amount of productive lending from the financial services sector to the real economy. Earlier, the noble Baroness cited the Bank of England’s December Financial Stability Report, in which the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England provides useful insights in this area. This also notes several actions the Government and regulators have taken to improve the supply of finance for productive purposes, including expansion of the British Business Bank’s financial capacity and reforms to the bank ring-fencing regime. However, I take the broader question around data in this area. I look forward to digesting the report by Positive Money and will write to the committee with further reflections subsequent to this debate.
On SME lending, the Government have increased the British Business Bank’s total financial capacity to £25.6 billion, a two-thirds uplift compared to previous years, and are reducing limitations on this funding, giving the bank more flexibility to address regional and sectoral gaps in SME finance. I think I have already mentioned the concierge service, which everybody in the committee today seems to welcome.
I move on to encouraging informed risk-taking. The UK will always uphold high standards, but a system has been created which at times has sought to eliminate risk-taking completely rather than managing it effectively, and this can hold back economic growth. We can grow only if we enable the UK’s financial services and markets to continue to serve a wide variety of people and firms. At Mansion House in 2024, the Chancellor set out that regulatory changes to eliminate risk after the financial crisis had gone too far and led to unintended consequences.
Metrics was another issue that was raised during the debate. The Government are committed to effective monitoring and evaluation of the strategy. In line with other sector plans that form part of the industrial strategy, the strategy sets out clear indicators focused on how growing the sector will support growth and investment across the UK, delivering security for working people and world-leading financial services to UK businesses and consumers. Because of the time lag in publishing data, the majority of metrics largely cover the period before the last election. However, since then, the Government have delivered a huge package of pensions reform to make sure that people have savings for their retirement and are investing in Britain, with the Pension Schemes Bill now making its way through Parliament.
The Government set out their vision for regulatory reform through their Regulation Action Plan, announced in March 2025. The RAP commits the Government to cutting the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of the Parliament. The Department for Business and Trade has identified the administrative burden of regulation on businesses to be £22.4 billion each year, which means that the 25% target represents a £5.6 billion annual reduction in the administrative burden.
The relationship between the Government and the regulators was also raised. The Government and the regulators have a strong relationship and are working together to facilitate growth in line with the Government’s economic policy. The remit letters that I mentioned earlier are a key mechanism for the Government to issue strategic steers to the regulators to support the Government’s economic policy and promote competitiveness and growth. The Treasury makes recommendations to the regulators through the remit letters. The letters set out the Government’s economic policy, to which the FCA and the PRA must have regard. The letters must be sent by the Chancellor at least once a Parliament, and the regulators are required to respond to the Chancellor annually.
There was a question on pensions. I will do my best, but I know that we will be debating them on Monday. Why do the Government think that pension funds are so reluctant to invest in UK assets? It seems that the lack of focus on value in the pensions market means that schemes invest only in low-cost asset classes. Cost is an important factor but, ultimately, net returns matter most. Therefore, the Pension Schemes Bill is addressing this by enabling scale in the pension market and through the value-for-money framework, as bigger schemes are able to invest more productively, as we see in Australia and Canada, for example, focusing on asset classes with higher potential long-run returns to investment and growth, such as infrastructure and venture. The noble Lord will probably pick that up in the debate on Monday.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked what the Government think about fintech struggling to raise money. The UK has the third-largest VC ecosystem in the world, which raised £23.6 billion in 2025, according to HSBC. We are third behind the USA and China. Although the UK has deep capital pools for start-ups, underpinned by generous tax reliefs, we recognise that there is further to go to support UK companies, including fintechs, to raise domestic scale-up capital. That is why, at the spending review, we increased the total financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion.
As mentioned in the EST’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in December, the FCA has undertaken several projects to improve the evidence base on how the financial sector regulations can support growth. In particular, it is consulting academics on how the financial sector hubs across the UK can support regional innovation.
There was a point raised about AI and inward investment. The Government are committed to realising the investment opportunities from AI. In January last year, the Government announced that investment in UK data centres infrastructure has reached £39 billion. Since then, the Government have designated five AI growth zones across Great Britain, including two in Wales and one in Scotland, generating £28.2 billion in investment. In 2025 alone, UK AI firms have raised £4.8 billion.
On the regulation of cryptocurrency, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, the Government recognise the transformative potential of digital assets. In February, we introduced an SI underpinning the regime that we want to see; the consultation on the rules and requirements laid out in the SI is at an advanced stage. The SI defines which crypto assets will be part of regulation—the qualifying crypto assets—and the new regulated activities. It also creates a definition for qualifying stablecoin as a subcategory of qualifying crypto assets.
I have mentioned the regulatory metrics before, but there were other issues raised. Now that the regulators have published two years’ worth of data against their secondary objectives, the Government, industry and Parliament can begin to meaningfully scrutinise the regulators’ performance and how it is changing over time, as well as assess the appropriateness of the metrics themselves. As part of the 2025-30 strategy, the FCA is revising what growth metrics it will publish with more granular metrics, if appropriate. The PRA noted in its second report into the competitiveness and growth objective in 2025 that it would keep its metrics up to date and ensure that they remain “world leading”.
This leads us to international comparisons. The Government agree with the committee that there is a benefit to making international comparisons where possible. The Government’s aim is to ensure that the UK is a competitive jurisdiction for international financial services business. The regulatory environment plays an important part in that. We accept that there is more to do on this, and the Government remain committed to reducing the complexity and burden of regulation on business, including reducing the admin burden by 25%.
Another question from my noble friend Lord Eatwell was on what the Government think about the inadequacies of macroprudential regulations to address systemic crises. The Bank of England Financial Policy Committee is the UK’s dedicated macroprudential authority responsible for the health of the financial system as a whole. The International Monetary Fund has described the FPC as world class. It is equipped with an extensive set of macroprudential tools—for example, loan-to-income ratio controls in mortgage lending.
I agree with the points that have been raised on financial inclusion and education. The Government are putting more focus on helping young people to build strong financial skills and prepare for key money decisions in life. As part of the financial inclusion strategy, the Government committed to making financial education compulsory in primary schools in England through a new statutory requirement to teach citizenship. Alongside this, the Department for Education and the Treasury have committed to working closely together to improve the quality and reach of financial education in England. There will be a public consultation on the updated curriculum in 2026, with the changes in place for the first teaching in 2028.
The consumer duty was, I think, first mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson. The FCA wrote to the Chancellor in September with the results of its review into the application of the consumer duty, and it is updating its approach. The Chancellor asked the FCA to report back to her on how it plans to address concerns about the application of the consumer duty for firms primarily engaged in wholesale activity. The FCA has already committed to taking a number of actions, including refreshing some of the supervisory expectations and consulting on changes to the rules that help firms to distinguish between retail and professional clients.
I may not have covered all the questions, but I will write to noble Lords if I have not. I conclude by saying, in the time I have left—about 20 seconds—that we need to be optimistic as well. We have to bear in mind, and it is worth repeating, that the UK remains a top global financial centre and our regulators have an excellent reputation. The UK is the largest global net exporter of financial services, totalling £102.2 billion in 2025, which represents half of the UK’s services export surplus. The Global Financial Centres Index of 2025 ranks London in second place in terms of financial centre competitiveness, with Edinburgh and Glasgow also inside the top 40. The Government are committed to building on those strengths.
To conclude, I express the Government’s and my appreciation for the committee’s ongoing engagement. The Government will provide a further update in the summer of 2026, and we are committed to continuing this dialogue.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I start with an apology to the Committee, because I failed to declare my interests at the outset of the debate. I declare shares in listed financial services companies, as on the register and in the report. I apologise for not declaring those interests earlier.
I will keep my remarks short, because the Minister is on his feet in the Chamber and we do not want to break and come back again to hear my conclusions. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and the Minister for his reply. I do not have time to draw out all noble Lords’ points, but I am particularly grateful to those who picked out some of the things that I did not cover in my summary of the report—in particular an important point that I had largely forgotten about the way in which some in the financial services sector are basically too frightened to say in public what they will happily and quite freely say to us in private. That is an indication of something that is not working well that is therefore not in the national interest.
Most people have agreed today that the competitiveness and growth secondary objectives could be an important stimulus to growth in the financial services sector. The problem is that while there are now lots of initiatives, actions and planned actions in play, at the moment we lack the evidence for whether we will get growth either in the financial services sector or in the economy overall. That is one of the things we have to keep a focus on in order to ensure that regulators are accountable for delivering to us on those objectives. I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm that we would be getting a report this summer. I am sure that my committee will look forward to examining that and possibly engaging with the Government on it.
As noble Lords have said, there has been a significant increase in regulation since the global financial crisis. This has weighed on financial services firms in very many ways, and can act as a deterrent to inward investment in financial services in the UK as well as within the financial services sector, reducing the capacity to lend into the productive economy.
One lesson is that regulation has a real-world impact. I hope that the regulators increasingly understand that what they do has real-world consequences, and that they are committed to modifying the behaviours that are leading to burdens on the industry. I hope that the Government will continue to accept their important role in getting better data, setting better metrics and continuing to apply pressure on the regulators to deliver.
Whether the regulators can change their risk-averse culture and become organisations that more creatively balance risks against opportunities in a proportionate way is an open question. I think we have to keep that in constant view. Both the regulators and the Government need to move away from the comfort blanket of operational efficiency. The real issues are much deeper than whether we process paperwork on authorisations in a certain number of days.
Because this is all so important to the UK’s economic success, the Government and Parliament have to keep the regulators in full view and ensure that their impact is kept under scrutiny. My committee is fully up to the task of playing its part in that; I am sure that we will return to that in due course.
House of Lords
UK Space Economy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the UK space economy.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, the space economy is a top priority for the Government, who have announced a £2.8 billion investment over the spending review for the UK Space Agency, including a £1.7 billion commitment at the last European Space Agency Ministerial Council. We are strategically investing to support sector growth through a new outcomes-based, targeted approach. Through a one-government philosophy, we will grow the space economy by focusing investment on enabling businesses to commercialise and scale.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Given that, in the space inquiry we conducted, The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out, we identified that the space sector is worth £18.6 billion to the economy, employs 55,000 people and is growing a rate of about 6% a year, can she tell us more about the priorities across government, as space impinges on every aspect of our lives?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I share the enthusiasm of my noble friend, the committee and the report for the space economy. We responded in detail to the recommendations earlier this year. We are setting out our strategic priorities, which, as the committee and my noble friend highlighted, encompassed many aspects of our lives, including defence, economic growth and support for our farming communities. We will continue to focus our spend on the priorities of economic growth and national security outcomes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on the Government’s space plan, will they formally adopt a policy of space debris neutrality, requiring all satellites launched from the UK to have what is called a “designed to demise” commitment to prevent further orbital congestion? With an active debris removal procurement worth some £75 million, how are the Government ensuring that UK-based SMEs are not being edged out by larger international companies for these critical domestic contracts?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord raises the important issue of space debris, which creates risks to our critical national infrastructure. We are strengthening UK space surveillance and investing in debris mitigation technologies. We are seen as a leader in space sustainability, including with the international community and His Majesty the King. We are supporting important UK companies such as Astroscale to understand the risks and costs of active debris removal. In fact, there are further announcements today on this important issue of space debris removal.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister agree that space still lacks an effective and enforceable legal framework, including liability for the space junk that has just been referred to, which is continuously being fly-tipped in space and is now blighting the few usable orbits around our planet? If so, what are HMG doing to ensure that UK expertise in law and in insurance play leading roles in making space a less lawless frontier?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK has a great deal of expertise on space, including on regulatory issues. We continue to collaborate internationally— for example, at the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space—to shape and uphold standards, regulations, norms and agreements on best practices to define the in-orbit regime across the globe.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
The first vertical-launch spaceport to receive planning consent was at Sutherland, in the far north of Scotland. However, Orbex, the private entity in the equation, suspended construction of Sutherland’s spaceport in December 2024, with only six months to go until the infrastructure would have been completed. Given the announcement of £1.5 billion in funding for national space programmes, what progress has now been made towards supporting the completion of the spaceport, which has already attracted interest from a number of potential launch providers? At a time when sovereign launch capability is becoming increasingly important, this infrastructure is vital not only for job creation and regional regeneration but for strengthening the UK’s space and defence capabilities. Would the Minister be willing to meet with me and key stakeholders to discuss how this project might be taken forward and how the Government can support its timely delivery?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I set out in my speech last week, assured access to space is one of the four priorities of the Government’s space policy. As I also set out then, we are pursuing our ambition of assured access to space. Last week, I announced a further £20 million of investment over the spending review to accelerate launch from Scotland. I will be working with industry and international partners to ensure that the UK has assured launch options.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the space department at Northumbria University? If not, would she accept an invitation to visit it and see its extraordinary, cutting-edge research?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Absolutely. One of the great pleasures of covering civil space is the enormity of expertise in our universities and companies. Almost everybody you meet is doing something ground-breaking and impressive. I would be very happy to meet the people suggested by my noble friend.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, events in Ukraine and Iran are showing the growing military defence importance of satellite communication, navigation and earth observation systems. Given our strengths here in the UK in satellite manufacture and space data services, does the Minister agree that the UK space sector is particularly well suited to dual-use applications that support both economic growth and defensive capability? If so, is now the moment for the Government to look for further ways to promote investment in our satellite manufacturing sector?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. The two priorities of our space policy are economic growth and national security; they are priorities for the whole of government and are central to our approach to space. I co-chair the Space Ministerial Forum with my colleague from the Ministry of Defence, bringing that whole-of-government approach to this important issue. In the speech I made last week on our four priorities, satellite communication was one of them; it is a real priority for the Government.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, following on from the previous question, there is a clear and urgent strategic demand for a robust, Europe-based polar satellite constellation. This is an area where the UK should be taking a lead, but at the moment it is not. This requires urgent action and sufficient investment. Will the Government undertake to give this area a real boost?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble and gallant Lord that the UK’s geography can provide particular advantages to the whole of Europe and to NATO. We are very committed to supporting the development of spaceports. Last week, I announced a further £20 million to support the development of spaceports in Scotland, so that is something we are pursuing with vigour.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend said about SaxaVord. I was very pleased to consent to the CAA’s regulatory approval when I was the Transport Secretary. I want to press the Minister a little more on the market size that will potentially be available to the UK with that vertical launch capability at SaxaVord. What specific steps will the Government take to ensure that we have that capability in the years to come?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes two important points. On the regulatory framework, the CAA has been doing some excellent work in supporting the development of a space regime that allows the UK to be a very attractive place for all sorts of space activity, including launch. The space indemnities Act is supportive of that, so I do agree with the noble Lord. As I mentioned, the £20 million that I announced last week was to accelerate the development of spaceports in Scotland for vertical launch.
Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Colgrain
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their definition of a small farm in the context of the reformed Sustainable Farming Incentive.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my farming interests in Kent, as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the new sustainable farming incentive offer for 2026 builds on the 2024 scheme but is simpler and more streamlined. When applications open in June this year, priority will be given to small farms and those without an existing environmental land management revenue agreement. Small farms are defined as having at least three hectares and no more than 50 hectares of agricultural land.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Given that farm units of the size that she has mentioned are generally viewed as uneconomic and unviable in purely agricultural terms, I ask, if I may, two questions. First, given that the Government used 140 hectares as the size of the average family farm when making calculations for the new inheritance taxes for farms and small businesses, why are they now penalising family farms by allowing only one-third of them by size to qualify for this funding tranche? Secondly, in the context of the Batters report, how does this small SFI tranche help with the two fundamentals that the report highlights—namely, to facilitate increased productivity and the need for greater security for domestic food production?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We believe that it is important to encourage smaller farms and those without existing agreements to come forward to access the grants that are available to make their farms more sustainable. It is a little sweeping to say that they are not economic. All farms are different, and it often depends on how they are managed. As the noble Lord said, there is a second window opening in September to which all farms will be able to apply. We are looking to support all farms in increasing food production. Food productivity is an important part of the Batters review. Much of what we are doing in the new offer and in the farming road map is in response to the Batters review’s recommendations.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the definition of a small farm within the SFI recognises the contribution of smaller, diversified family farms to nature recovery and local food production? How will the Government avoid favouring larger land holdings that may find it easier to access the 71 requirements—admittedly down from over 100—of the still complex scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have tried to reduce the complexity of the scheme. We want to make it more straightforward for more farms and different types of farms to access. There are opportunities for horticultural growers, which are often smaller farms as well. We are looking to better support tenant farmers and, importantly, are doing more to support people who farm on moorland and in upland areas. If we are to support sustainable farming, we need to encourage all farms to feel that they are part of what the Government are trying to achieve.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not about time that we means-tested farmers? We seem to be giving taxpayers’ money to billionaires. Is it not time that we stopped doing that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the recommendations in the Batters review is about active farming and ensuring that the payments that we make from government go to people who are farming and supporting the food production that our country so badly needs if we are to have food security. That is what we are trying to do.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I very much welcome the announcement on SFI support for smaller farms, although I have many of the same reservations as the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. However, does the Minister recognise that the proposed 62% rise in electricity standing charges in April, which already accounts for 60% of energy bills, will drive food inflation and dramatically affect the competitiveness of intensive farming and horticulture, which are already facing imports of products grown to lower standards overseas? Do these sectors remain a priority for the Secretary of State for Defra?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a really important point. There are a number of challenges for farming around things such as electricity prices, and oil is now being affected by the ongoing war. We are critically aware of that. It is not just farming; there are a number of industries where these kinds of pressures are going to be challenging. One thing that we are doing in Defra is trying to work these issues through. My colleague, Angela Eagle MP, who is the Farming Minister, is talking regularly to farmers about these issues. We have to look at how we can support and manage these kinds of challenges.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The new SFIs offer some reduced payment rates per acre and remove management payments—winter bird food falls by 24% and herbal leys by 41%. SFIs require substantial expenditure by the recipients in order to claim these payments, and reducing payment rates dramatically reduces the potential for profit and the incentive element of the SFIs. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, costs are going up for farmers. Could the Minister tell us what work has been done by the Government to ensure that these are adequate payment rates? Will they commit that, if take-up of these schemes falls below budget, the full farming budget will be used elsewhere to support the farming sector directly? I refer the House to my interest as a farmer in receipt of SFI payments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Farming Minister has spent a long time looking at the different options to try to target the types of farm and types of productivity that she wants to increase. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that the management payment has been removed. That was done to increase the amount of budget that would be available for new agreements. We want as many farmers as possible to be able to benefit from SFI funding this year, which is why that payment was taken out. A number of actions have come out but, in some areas, agreements have seen the payments increase for certain activities—for example, on moorlands. Some areas have gained and some have not, but it is about getting the balance towards where the Government want to see things changing.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
I keep hearing from farmers, particularly from small farms, about the impact of the fiasco of the changes in inheritance tax. Would the Minister give some reassurance that future policy changes will truly be rural-proofed? I declare an interest as this year’s president of the Royal Norfolk Show.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am beginning to wish I lived in Norfolk so that I could come—it is a long way from Cumbria. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that one of the things we have been working much harder on in Defra, as we develop policies and then manage and oversee them, is working with other departments where there is also an impact. It is really important to have that oversight. The noble Lord was just talking about energy prices, and we work with DESNZ on how best we can approach that. It will be the same for rural-proofing more broadly. It is certainly very much on our agenda.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, in the first round of SFI26, the maximum per farm will be capped at £100,000? According to my mathematics, these aspirant billionaires with 50 hectares cannot possibly fit enough options in there to get to £100,000. Would it not be better to reduce the cap—make it, say, £30,000—and spread it far more widely over these small farms than will be possible now?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct that there is a cap of £100,000. The first tranche is open to small farms and those who do not have an agreement, and then there will be another tranche in September, which will be open to all. That is why the cap is important.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the sustainable farming incentive is trying to put a sharper focus on water quality and biodiversity, which small family farms are often quite good at. I am concerned that their value is appreciated from a local economy point of view and because they are quite often very sustainable and organic. Does the Minister feel that they are going to be properly valued?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The short answer is yes, I very much hope that they will be. We are keen to support organic farming and to see more farms become more, shall we say, environmentally friendly.
EU Digital Services Act and Regulation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the European Union in relation to (1) alignment with the EU Digital Services Act, and (2) greater co-operation on digital services regulation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The Government regularly engage with the EU on digital policy, including direct discussions on the Digital Services Act, which like the UK’s Online Safety Act requires companies to take proportionate steps to protect users online. While the UK has taken its own regulatory approach, we co-operate with the EU where it supports UK citizens and businesses. The new EU-UK digital dialogue will deepen co-operation on shared challenges, including AI and online child safety.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. There would be several economic, regulatory and strategic benefits if the UK were to be part of the EU’s Digital Services Act. Scale matters when it comes to dealing with the powerful global tech companies, and it is quite clear from the US’s AI action plan that it will not limit their powers. The DSA is likely to become a global standard, like GDPR, so can the Minister confirm that this Government will include it as a matter of urgency on the agenda of ongoing reset discussions with the EU, with a view to becoming a member?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have reset our relations with European partners, improving diplomatic, economic and security co-operation, and we are committed to playing a role in shaping an open, trusted digital future with the EU and other partners. We have the Online Safety Act here. We have announced consultations on future measures, including on children’s well-being, and the EU’s digital omnibus is looking at lots of other aspects of reform. Our new UK-EU digital dialogue, announced as part of the reset, will provide a structured forum for ongoing engagement on digital policy.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the EU’s digital governance for online platforms relies on certain basic principles—they should operate transparently, responsibly and in alignment with legal standards. That is a formal basis on which we should operate too. Instead of having new laws that align with the EU, why do we not simply codify the laws that we currently have and make them applicable to these new areas, which are innovative and ever developing?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have the Online Safety Act, which is enforced by Ofcom and other regulators and, as the noble Lord will know, we announced a consultation just recently on areas that we may seek to expand or take further measures on to enhance children’s well-being.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as part of this dialogue, close co-operation on robust competition enforcement is essential to resist growing US pressure to weaken digital rules? As the EU actively enforces its Digital Markets Act, will the Government commit to aligning in practice with strong EU enforcement standards rather than allowing US corporate lobbying to dilute the UK’s digital markets competition regime?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK has taken decisive action to strengthen competition and fairness in digital markets. In January 2025, Parliament equipped the CMA with new powers to boost competition and innovation in digital markets. In May, the Government issued a clear steer to the CMA to prioritise this work and align action with international jurisdictions, including the EU. The UK and CMA engage regularly with EU counterparts as both regimes begin operation to help maintain close alignment on emerging issues.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the EU already has AI legislation. Do the Government intend to bring forward their own legislation on AI and how to regulate it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our approach is to have regulators who are sector-specific and have the expertise to look at how AI is affecting the companies they regulate and its impact.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, many digital harms such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. In that light, can the Minister enlarge on the practical measures the Government are pursuing with the European Union to assure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom’s work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Ofcom and the EU have an agreement and talk frequently about regulatory co-operation. Ofcom is also a member of a global network of regulators, so it can share best practice and welcome further co-operation.
Iranian State-sponsored Cyber Attacks: Mitigation and Preparation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to (1) the general public, and (2) businesses, about what steps they should take to mitigate and prepare for the consequences of Iranian state-sponsored cyberattacks, sabotage or disruption arising from recent events in the Middle East.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest, as recorded in the register, as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the National Cyber Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East and directly engaging with critical sectors, providing immediate and specific information and advice. It has issued an alert, urging all organisations, especially those with assets or supply chains in the region, to remain vigilant. While it is likely that the direct cyber threat from Iran to the UK has not changed, NCSC advises organisations to strengthen their cyber security posture due to the fast-evolving nature of the conflict. The National Protective Security Authority also issued updated guidance last year on countering the threat of sabotage, helping organisations to protect their sites from physical threats.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am also grateful for what the National Cyber Security Centre has been doing in terms of targeted advice. However, last week four people were arrested by the Metropolitan Police under the National Security Act for what has been reported as spying against Jewish organisations— so there is an issue about that in terms of the risk of Iranian sabotage. There has also been a series of incidents across Europe and in this country of Russian-inspired or Russian paid-for attacks on various businesses. What is the general advice given to the public, to small businesses and to larger businesses in terms of the precautions they ought increasingly to take under the current international situation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point; all of this comes down to our national resilience and making sure that we are prepared for such threats. Before I highlight what we are doing on the specifics of cyber, and on cyber more generally, let me highlight that ministerial colleagues, the Faith Minister and the security services, which have done so much in recent days to keep us safe, have met and spoken to a large range of Jewish and Muslim organisations to provide reassurance. They have also met with my noble friend Lord Mann and 20 councils to provide reassurance to those who are so worried about the current conflict.
In terms of specific guidance, the reality is that in this space we need a whole-society approach. Businesses have to take the lead—they know where their threats are and where their vulnerabilities may lie—but at this point we need to make sure that we are collectively working together. The Government will bring forward the cyber action plan by spring, and the cyber security and resilience Bill is currently in the other place.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as the defence production need for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now doing, are the Government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapidly growing, are closely enough aligned with the plans of British industry?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that we are protecting British industry and working with key allies. Last year, cyber attacks cost the economy £15 billion, and it is a growing threat. We need to work with business, but also to be led by it because it knows what infrastructure is there. As some noble Lords will be aware, some of this is low tech as much as high technology, and people are seeking every vulnerability. We all need to be cognisant of that and make sure there is a genuinely whole-society approach.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are going to have a whole-society response, we had better make sure that the whole society is informed about the nature of the threat. Nearly a year ago, the strategic defence review talked about the need for
“a national conversation led by the Government”—
political leadership by the Government—to inform and educate the wider public about the nature of these new cyber and other hybrid threats from a number of different countries: Iran, Russia, China and others. When are the Government going to provide that political leadership through the national conversation which was proposed?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed that not everybody looks at the NCSC’s website in the same way that I do to ensure that they are updated. The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that people are aware. It was one of the reasons why it was so important in the run-up to the national alerts we had on all our phones last year that materials were made available about what else could be done in terms of resilience and what other things needed to be done. I urge all noble Lords to make sure they are also protected. I hate to do this, but there is a cyber offer available to every Member of your Lordships’ House, and I believe only 10 of us have accessed it. It would be very good if all Members of your Lordships’ House took up the security offering provided to protect us while we talk about others too.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, sticking with the theme, Iran is a sophisticated actor and works closely with Russia. We know the threats that Russia can generate, which are more than cyber. It is not just time for a national conversation; it is time to strengthen our national security narrative for the whole country.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that of course I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. It is also about making sure the foundations we have in place are right too. We go from national security to national defence within this space, as well as our wider resilience programme. It is one of the reasons why the Rycroft review into funding of political parties is so important and why the Representation of the People Bill, which is in the other place, is key. It is also why we are investing £170 million in Sovereign encrypted technology so that we can protect ourselves. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the challenges from Iran are not one-dimensional; they are multi-dimensional and we all need to be prepared.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, when Russia invaded Ukraine, we were very quick to sanction individuals and freeze assets. Can the noble Baroness tell me what assets we have frozen of the late ayatollah? His office, I believe, is still open in Kilburn. Apparently, there are flats and so on near Israel’s embassy in Kensington. What are we doing to sanction the assets?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have taken significant action so far. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We have also placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme, to better reveal any Iranian influence on the UK. We are also training front-line police officers on what state threats are and are not. In terms of the specifics, I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, we have talked a lot about cyber defence, and of course that is extremely important, but you do not win a war purely through defence and, be in no doubt, we are at war in cyber space. I do not expect the Minister to give us any details, but could she reassure the House that we are taking all the action necessary to go on the offensive in this area as well as defend?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord knows much more than I do about how to fight a war. He is absolutely right that we need to be prepared on all fronts, and I want to reassure him that we are making sure that we are.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the National Audit Office recently examined the cyber threat facing the UK Government and reached some deeply concerning conclusions. It found that 58 critical government IT systems have significant gaps in their cyber resilience and that the Government do not even know how vulnerable at least 228 legacy systems are to cyber attack. It also highlighted a number of underlying weaknesses, shortage of cyber security skills within government and insufficient co-ordination across departments. In the face of what the NAO has described as a “severe and advancing” threat, with tensions in the Middle East further heightening the risk environment, can the noble Baroness set out what steps the Government are taking to address these shortcomings and strengthen the resilience of critical government systems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the cyber security and resilience Bill is in the other place, which is a starting point. I am aware of what she has highlighted and we are working across Government to fix it. There is also the cyber action plan, which will be published this spring.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, may I bring my noble friend back to the question of a national conversation and ask her a rather more prosaic question about what efforts the Government are making to counter the kind of information that gives rise to very unhelpful behaviours: for example, the hoarding of certain kinds of foodstuffs, petrol and other things? Is she aware, or are the Government aware, of any particular rise in that kind of behaviour at this moment?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question, which is interesting. I have not been made aware that any of those behaviours have yet happened. Anyone who watches the news is aware of quite how volatile and uncertain the world is. You can understand why that is. What I would say, both to members of your Lordships’ House and to the general public, is that there is a responsibility on those of us who can look after ourselves at a point of crisis to make sure that we have minimum levels of food and water at home so that the state can look after the most vulnerable and deal with the emergency at hand. All of that guidance is available on GOV.UK.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the source of much of this activity is the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why have our Government not proscribed it to try and prevent this activity at source? Secondly, the growth of the rampant misinformation and disinformation, which is causing Islamophobia and antisemitism—some, indeed, from far-right evangelical groups in the United States—is now becoming pervasive. What work are the Government doing with Ofcom to prevent that at source?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware of my own voting record on the IRGC’s proscription—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Yes, in opposition. But let me be clear: proscription powers are designed for non-state terror organisations, not state organisations. We have committed to taking forward plans recommended by Jonathan Hall KC for a proscription-like power for states and state-linked bodies to tackle hostile state activity. That will come forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
With regard to the other point, some of this action is happening in terms of media literacy training, changes to the curriculum and how all of us interrogate data and what we see online. The reality, I say as someone who has lived and breathed some of the misinformation that is put out about people in this space, is that we need to be aware that what happens online really does have an effect offline. That is increasingly the reality that we have to manage, which is why my final word is to say once again how thankful I am to the security services.
Pension Schemes: Ministerial Powers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for Ministers to possess powers (1) to direct specific investment allocations for private sector workers’ pension funds or (2) to make investment in Government directed assets a condition of approval for automatic enrolment pension schemes.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Pension Schemes Bill contains a reserve power on asset allocation, designed as a backstop to the voluntary commitments made by the pensions industry under the Mansion House Accord. The Government do not currently expect to use this power. Were this power ever exercised, schemes that cannot meet the requirements without causing material financial detriment to their members would be able to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. The power is time-limited and subject to consultation, parliamentary approval and robust safeguards.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am afraid that if the Government’s main argument for including these powers is that they do not expect to need to use them, and will use them only if pension schemes themselves decide that they do not believe it is wise to achieve the allocations that the Government want them to, I have even greater concerns about those powers. I urge the Government to think again about overriding trustees’ decisions about what assets to invest in.
In particular, the Government are trying to take unlimited powers in the Bill to prescribe a percentage, but we do not know what that percentage might be, and to invest in assets, but we do not know which assets they will be. Even those who brokered the Mansion House Accord, such as Pensions UK and the ABI, are saying that they wish this to be reconsidered. Do the Government really believe that they know better than the investment industry how pension schemes should invest? Do they not consider that this is an example of the problems that the Government might have in excluding from the Bill some of the ideal vehicles which could be used to invest in the very assets that the Government say they want to support?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness well knows, we have been discussing this matter for some weeks now in Committee and will be discussing it again on Monday, when we come to the matter on Report. Let me give her a brief answer to the points she has made. I know that she agrees with the Government’s objectives, because she herself has advocated previously—indeed, in Committee—that we make pension tax relief contingent on 25% of new investment being allocated to UK assets. I know she wants the same thing that we do.
To be really clear, the power is being taken as a reserve power to back the voluntary, industry-led Mansion House Accord, which said that by 2030, 17 of the largest pension schemes in the private pensions sector would be investing 10% of their relevant default funds into private investment, with half of that in the UK. The expectation is that having done that, the industry will do it. The reason for taking a reserve power is, as the noble Baroness knows very well, that the challenge in the UK is too often schemes compete on cost and not on value. There is always a risk that for some small competitive advantage, somebody may want to try to separate off from that, so the reserve power is signalling clearly to the industry: this is the direction of travel, so let us stay with it. All we are doing is backstopping that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Government say that this power is merely a backstop to the Mansion House Accord but that is a gross misrepresentation. The Pension Schemes Bill goes far beyond that and gives Ministers sweeping authority to mandate pension investments to whatever level they choose. The state should not be directing the allocation of private pension assets. Those decisions must be taken by trustees in the best interests of their members, not by Labour Ministers pursuing political objectives. This policy risks undermining confidence in the entire auto-enrolment system, which was built on the promise that people’s savings would be invested in their interests, not the Government’s. I ask the Minister a simple question: will the Government remove this dangerous and unjustified power from the Bill?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
There is a short and a long answer. The short answer is no. The long answer is that the Government have made it abundantly clear, because I have done it myself many times in Committee, what the purpose of the reserve power is: to backstop the Mansion House and trust commitments. My honourable friend the Pensions Minister and I have made it clear—he said it again this morning at a pensions conference—that we would make absolutely sure that the Government’s intention simply to backstop those agreements was there in the Bill. That is what the legislation is for, but I need to correct something in particular. This power does not direct schemes into specific assets or projects. What it does is set a broad framework aligned with the industry’s own voluntary commitments under the Mansion House Accord. Trustees retain full discretion over individual investment selection and the balance between asset classes. The role of a pension trustee has always been to exercise judgment, subject to constraints, and nothing in these provisions changes that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister perhaps tell us why she thinks pension funds are not currently investing, or have not been investing, in the types of assets that she would like them to? I ask that question because surely the better way forward is to understand what is stopping them doing so and fixing that problem, rather than telling them to do something they do not wish to do.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have said this many times in Committee, as the noble Lord knows, but I am delighted to explain again for the benefit of the whole House. I have just explained what the Government believe the challenge is. By international standards, we are really very low in aiming for 10%. Canadian schemes invest 11% in infrastructure alone. The evidence is clear that investing a small proportion of funds in the context of a diversified portfolio brings better returns for savers over the long run. The aim is to get better returns for savers. There is too much short-termism in our markets at the moment, and the view of the Government—as well as the evidence that seems to be out there—is that this is because we are seen as competing on cost, rather than on return or value. It is much easier to pitch to an employer on that basis. If we make it clear that the whole industry is going in this direction, then we believe that that will be the case. The choices will still be there, the safeguards are still in place, and we believe that this will be in the interests of savers across the long term.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, what timeline are the Government following, given that the Mansion House Accord target is 2030? When will the Government commence consultation, as there has not been any yet, and what analysis has been done about the difficulties now reported daily of private credit funds, and others, not being able to make redemptions or exits? Would the effect be that the Government would be forcing workers’ pensions to be buyers of last resort, and is that fair when private sector workers do not have any guaranteed benefits?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have not set out a timeline for using the power precisely because we have made it clear that we do not wish to use it, and do not expect to use it. The timeline for Mansion House is clear: the power expires if it is not used, and if any requirements are in place, they are capped at that level and cannot be raised thereafter. This will happen only if it becomes clear that the Mansion House Accord is not able to be delivered on. At that point the Government would consult, they would produce draft regulations, and the process would then happen. As I have made clear, since the only aim is to backstop the Mansion House Accord, the evidence should come from what companies are doing in that accord.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend I am looking forward to discussing these issues at length on Report of the Pension Schemes Bill. Does the Minister agree with me that the real trick is not so much directing the investment as finding the suitable opportunities in which to invest? Her honourable friend the Pensions Minister has talked extensively about the failure of investment in reservoirs over the last 20 or 30 years. There is a failure there that has to be addressed.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right; we have had many opportunities. It has been a joy to discuss the Pension Schemes Bill over many weeks, and that joy is set to extend for some weeks to come. My noble friend raises an important point: if the Government want to make sure that people are investing in good projects, they need to make sure that there are good projects to invest in. We also need to make sure that there are vehicles for doing that. The Government have done a great deal already, with the British Business Bank, looking at what has happened with Sterling 20 and at making sure that we work with industry to create the opportunities. But there is clearly money to be made here: if international pension funds are coming to our country and buying up chunks of our infrastructure and our private equity, we should be making sure that these are open to our own pension funds to make money on them. Nobody is making them do it; they are doing it because it is the right thing to do. We need to make sure, therefore, that we enable and encourage it, and the industry has taken the first steps itself. We are simply making sure that the backstop is there to make clear that this is the direction of travel.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Scottish American Investment Company. I understand why the Government would want to take a reserve power, given the persistent failure of the City of London—one of the biggest global financial centres—to provide equity finance to British industry over 150 years. Equally, successive Governments’ record of direct investment, or indeed direct intervention, is, to put it charitably, poor. Does the Minister acknowledge that government intervention carries a price in terms of market confidence, and will the Government take that into account before exercising any reserve power?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for an excellent question; with his background I would expect no less. The simple answer is yes. To be clear, the power does not direct schemes into any specific assets or projects. What it does is set a broad framework. It talks about private investment as a whole, not about specific assets. Crucially, the safeguards are really clear. If the power ever comes to be used, a number of things have to happen. First, there has to be a report commissioned and published before the power is used, so as to make sure that the conditions are right, and to show the impact on savers’ interest and on growth. Secondly, there is a savers’ interest test. If the trustees believe that it would not be in the interests of their beneficiaries to follow the direction, not only can they, but one would expect their fiduciary duties to guide them to, make an application for an exemption under the savers’ interest test; that is there to do that job for them. There is also parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the Minister herself has just said, the signatories to the Mansion House Accord signed up to a voluntary agreement to invest in UK assets. Does she agree that they were not aware that the reserve power, the so-called mandation element, was going to be in the Bill? Does she therefore agree with me, with many of the signatories themselves, and with those in the pensions industry that mandation goes well beyond the Mansion House Accord?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, to be clear, the Government designed this power specifically to backstop the Mansion House Accord, and that is our intention. I am always open to suggestions of ways to make that clearer than we have tried to do so far. I had a great opportunity to talk to many Members of the House about this and many other issues, and I am happy to carry on doing that. There is a very simple way for any of the Mansion House signatories to make sure that this power is never used: to keep to the voluntary commitments that they have already made. If that happens, there will be no need for the power ever to be used and the Government will not bring it in, so everybody will be happy. That is the simple way forward.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, under the Mansion House Accord, and the mandation that now sits behind it, people on the lowest incomes will find 10% of their pensions put into high-risk illiquid assets. Given that that pool of assets is currently in very serious trouble thanks to illiquidity—this was prior to the Iran war, which is going to burst the bubble—will the Minister say that, if she forces this through, the Government will backstop the losses that will happen for those people on the lowest incomes, so that their pensions are not wrecked when they reach retirement?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, first, as I have said before, the Government are very clear—and the Bill makes clear—that were the power ever to be used, the Government must commission a report that will look at the state of the market and the impact on savers’ interests, as well as wider impacts, before using the power. If what the noble Baroness is describing were to be the case, that would become evident, and it would of course affect the Government’s decision.
Secondly, and, again, just to be clear, it is because we want to look after the interests of savers that we want to tackle the fact that, by international standards, UK pension funds invest tiny amounts of money in private finance, and therefore, as a result of not investing in private assets, it is savers—those savers whom the noble Baroness specifically describes—who are losing out because they are not getting the returns that they need. These are the default funds, so savers who know lots about this, and who will want to make judgments on making sure that their assets are in the right place, are already doing that. It is not serving their interests if these default funds are being put simply into passive investing or things that will not bring the long-term returns.
Finally, this goes back to the fact that the trustees are not being directed to invest in any specific asset or particular project. If the power was ever to be brought in and they were asked to do this, and if they believed that it was not in their interests, then we would expect them to apply for an exemption to protect the interests of their members. If there was something about their members—in the way that the noble Baroness describes—that was relevant, they would simply have to provide that evidence. That is what the savers’ interest test is for.
Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 and 26 January be approved.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:30 - Division on Amendment 387A - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 387A agreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 387B - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 221 - Amendment 387B agreed.
19:16 - Division on Amendment 391 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 391 agreed.
“Police charges for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a framework to regulate the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions. (2) The framework under subsection (1) must—(a) include criteria to specify when a police escort is required for vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions, as opposed to a private self-escort, and(b) set out the fees police forces may charge for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.(3) Police forces may submit applications in writing to the Secretary of State to disapply the fees set by the regulatory framework in extenuating circumstances.(4) The Secretary of State must make a determination within ten days of receiving an application submitted under subsection (3).(5) In this section “vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions” means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (authorisation of use on roads of special vehicles not complying with regulations under section 41).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I fear I am a wholly inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has now retired from your Lordships’ House after 35 years of dedicated service. During that time, he raised many important issues relating to haulage, including in Committee on this Bill. While my noble friend was proud to be the only Member of either House of Parliament with an HGV licence, I should admit, with a little shame, that I do not have a driving licence at all. There is perhaps a lesson in that, now that we have passed a Bill to expel our hereditary colleagues, with all their varied areas of expertise, leaving behind former apparatchiks such as me.
I was very glad to support my noble friend’s amendment in Committee and to take up the cudgels now, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because it is an issue which has a profound impact on many organisations across the cultural, tourism and heritage sectors, not least our heritage railways, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very strongly in Committee. This weekend, he and I had the pleasure of being in Llandudno, in our capacities as president and chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, for the HRA annual awards. These celebrated the extraordinary achievements of charities, small businesses and volunteers of all ages, from every corner of the UK, in keeping this much-loved part of our national heritage thriving in the face of considerable challenges, such as rising costs, employment taxes and more.
I was especially pleased to see such strong representation there from the north-east of England as we celebrated those responsible for marking the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey from Stockton to Darlington in such style, and I was delighted to see the Tanfield Railway, which charts its history back 100 years even further, to the age of horse-driven wagon-ways, become Railway of the Year. That means that a small corner of County Durham now boasts the Museum of the Year, in Beamish, and the Railway of the Year just a few minutes away.
However, one of the things which makes the work of brilliant organisations like these harder is the way that certain police forces manage the movement of abnormal loads on our road network. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways is undertaken by road on low loaders. These movements are vital for the galas at which historic locomotives and vintage carriages bring such joy to people of all generations—not to mention inward investment to towns, cities and rural communities—as well as for essential maintenance and repairs. These road movements are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors and sometimes have to be accompanied by a police escort vehicle. The cost of these police escorts is typically between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and, in some cases, even exceed the haulier’s charges, with some heritage railways reporting charges that they have seen in excess of £7,000. For many of our heritage railways, which are registered charities or small businesses operating on very tight margins, these costs can be entirely prohibitive.
Moreover, there is widespread inconsistency in the application of these charges, with some police forces charging and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on the weight of the load, but some determine it on the length. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles through a particular police force area, with the rest of the journey going unescorted, but a full fee is still applied. To avoid these charges, some hauliers are now making large and unnecessary detours, which add mileage and costs, and increase the environmental impact. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, explained that a particular culprit in this regard is West Midlands Police, which many hauliers have been trying to avoid because of the unhelpful attitudes that it has displayed, but of course that is not very easy given its central location in England.
Following the debates in Committee and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Policing Minister Sarah Jones had a helpful exchange of correspondence with the acting chief constable of West Midlands, underlining the importance of adhering to the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on this matter. We are very grateful to the Minister for writing in the way that she did, and we all hope that her letter and the change of leadership at that force will bring some improvements. However, West Midlands is far from the only force causing dismay with an inconsistent approach or excessive charges. Heritage railways moving loads through Staffordshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland have all reported similar issues to those confronted in the West Midlands.
This is a problem that afflicts many businesses and organisations in every sector. I have heard from the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, which represents the owners and operators of approximately 3,000 holiday, touring and residential parks across the United Kingdom. Its members also have experienced excessive cost increases when transporting static caravans to and from holiday parks, as well as significant delays from an inconsistent application of embargoes by various police forces. Most troublingly, the Holiday and Residential Parks Association says that, despite the publication of revised guidance by the NPCC last summer, it and its members continue to see very little improvement in practice. Given the need for clarity and consistency, this is not a matter which should have rely on the whims of individual police forces or the good offices of the Policing Minister, whoever he or she happens to be at the time.
It is particularly damaging for rural and coastal areas where tourism is one of the major sources of employment. If the Government want to support economic growth across our country, here is a clear area in which they could act to help the growth creators. The Minister has been very helpful in discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and me. First, can he say what weight the guidance prepared by the National Police Chiefs’ Council carries? What penalties or remedies apply if an individual force do not adhere to it? Secondly, can the Minister set out some of the actions that the West Midlands Police has promised, following the exchange of correspondence between it and the Policing Minister? Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said in Committee that:
“Introducing a standardised regulatory framework … would also risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs”.—[Official Report, 15/1/26; col. 1953.]
Does he really think it fair that heritage railways or holiday parks in some parts of the country should be treated differently to others, and does he think it right to risk creating the sort of postcode lottery that we have already begun to see?
Amendment 384, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I are proud to bring forward on behalf of our noble friend Lord Attlee, and building on his work, does not ask Ministers to intervene in operational matters. It simply requires the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage more clearly and consistently the fees that are charged to hauliers when escorting what may be dryly termed in the industry as “abnormal loads”, but which ordinary people across this country would think of as inspiring locomotives, much-loved holiday homes and more besides. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 384, which is similar to the one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and debated in Committee on 15 January. Police charges for abnormal loads are a cause he very much made his own, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and I am sorry that his retirement from your Lordships’ House came just a couple of weeks too early for him to be here to move the amendment today.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am an unworthy substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am afraid it is one of those occasions when real life catches up with your Lordships’ House; it has stopped her being here today. She supports the amendment. When you start to think about it, it comes under the heading of a no-brainer: there should be a consistent approach. If you are taking on an economic activity to transport something across the country, you should have a rough idea about a consistent approach to transporting it. If you have not, there should be a very good reason. There does not seem to be one, other than it having been decided that they will be charged at this rate.
Heritage railways are a nice cause, but there are more widespread and universal economic impacts from this if you transport goods on our main transport system without incurring extra, sometimes prohibitive costs. It would be comparatively easy for the Government to at least bring them into line and give them some steer as to a realistic level of charge to be placed on them. At the very least, admin considerations around this can be cut down. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that it is all in hand and that the Government have a timetable for making sure anybody involved in this knows what is happening, so that everybody can say “thank you very much” and move on to the next issue.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. I suggest that if, as I hope, the Minister agrees that regulations are needed, they should not just deal with consistency but impose a substantive limit on the fees to be charged. It seems that in this context, as in many others, the maximum that should be charged is the cost incurred to police forces.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, although the movement of abnormal loads may seem like a niche and marginal activity, my noble friend Lord Attlee, who recently retired from your Lordships’ House, laid out a compelling argument in Committee for why that is not the case. The heavy haulage industry is a vital component of our national infrastructure and construction sectors, yet the framework governing when police escorts are required and how much may be charged for them is inconsistent.
It is wonderful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has now taken up the mantle on this matter. He began his contribution by outlining his concerns about the use of heavy haulage by the heritage railway industry, an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The issues are wider than that. In Committee, Earl Attlee spoke with considerable authority on this matter and set out the difficulties that parts of the industry have experienced. In particular, he highlighted the sharp increase in charges in certain areas and the absence of any national framework governing those fees. In some cases, police forces have charged for a full shift of officers, even where the escort itself may take a very short period of time. Industry representatives have raised understandable concerns that such practices can result in costs that far exceed the cost of the haulage operation itself.
The overwhelming majority of police forces apply the relevant legislation in good faith and without difficulty. The problem appears to arise in only a minority of forces, where the absence of national guidance has led to practices that the industry considers disproportionate. The result is uncertainty for hauliers, increased costs for major infrastructure projects and, ultimately, inefficiency within a system that should be operating smoothly.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that there is a clear national framework. It sets out when police escorts are truly necessary, as opposed to private self-escorts, and would establish a transparent schedule of fees. It also sensibly seeks to allow police forces to apply to the Secretary of State for flexibility in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Put simply, the amendment balances the need for consistency with the operational realities that police forces face. For those reasons, I am grateful both for the tireless campaigning of Earl Attlee and to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for continuing to push the Government on this matter.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I join all the speakers in the debate on this small but important issue in praising the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who, after almost 34 years of service in this House, retired just a few days ago. It would be remiss of me not to join in paying tribute to him, his work and the tenacity with which he pursued this issue, including recruiting the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester to take up the cudgels on his behalf. He was a true champion of the heavy haulage industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said, it is important that we focus on this not just because of the impact on the Heritage Railway Association—as dear as it is to many hearts in your Lordships’ House—but because of the importance it has to our economy, including all the construction and infrastructure that we wish to provide.
Earl Attlee took great pride in being the only Member of your Lordships’ House to hold an HGV licence. I hope that, in his absence, he is pleased to know that that knowledge gap has been bridged in some part by my newly introduced noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham. By virtue of being a firefighter, he holds—or at least held—an HGV licence for the purpose of driving fire engines. I think that Earl Attlee would have appreciated that.
Moving to the matters before us in the amendments, as noble Lords have explained, the amendment relates to setting criteria specifying when a police escort is required and charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads and would require the Secretary of State to establish a framework to regulate such fees. While I recognise that the aim of the amendment is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such loads, we do not believe that a new statutory framework is necessary.
Changes have already been made to support greater consistency. In May last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published new guidance outlining when police escorts should be provided for abnormal loads. This was developed in collaboration with policing, industry and national highways. The NPCC Abnormal Load Guidance 2025 is the national framework used by all UK police forces to determine whether an escort is required and, if so, whether that escort must be provided by the police or can be undertaken as a self-escort. Furthermore, a national framework setting out charges for escorting these loads already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the cost of policing in specific circumstances. Fee levels are set out in the guidance on special police services by the NPCC, and this is updated annually.
Introducing a standardised regulatory framework—as I said in Committee, and I will repeat it here—undermines the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs. We cannot escape this fact. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal load movements can differ across the country and are influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic additions and the availability of police resources.
To be clear, the Government take this issue seriously. As we have heard, following a meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, my colleague, Policing Minister Jones, wrote to West Midlands Police to pass on her concerns. I am grateful for the commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner, of that correspondence. As a result, I understand that West Midlands Police is undertaking an independent, expert evaluation to assess the force’s compliance systems and processes against the NPCC guidance.
It is important to allow time for the recent guidance to have effect before considering further action. Furthermore, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, the NPCC has committed to formally review its abnormal loads guidance 12 months after publication; that is, in May of this year—a couple of months’ time.
I understand noble Lords’ concerns around the adherence of police forces to this guidance. Therefore, I can confirm that the Government will write to the NPCC following Royal Assent of the Bill to remind forces of the need to follow the guidance I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and, in the same spirit, my noble friend Lord Faulkner asked what weight could be given to the guidance issued by the NPCC and what actions might be pursued by West Midlands Police as a consequence. As I have already said, West Midlands Police is undertaking a review. This is NPCC guidance, which it is itself reviewing to make sure that it remains current and responsive to issues that emerge over time.
There is always a balance between having inflexible statutory guidance, inflexible statutory regulation and guidance that is operated locally. We are currently on the side of the latter. Within that, this is national guidance. Police forces will pay great attention to that. They will pay even greater attention to the idea that, to quote my noble friend Lord Faulkner, the Policing Minister is “on the case” with this. With respect, I think that is an appropriate level of intervention. The Government are aware that it is an important issue. We will always keep our eyes on it and make sure that we can have a level of scrutiny to ensure that police forces behave respectfully toward hauliers while maintaining their local operational independence.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Will the letter that the Minister mentioned make the point that it is unacceptable in principle for police forces to seek to make a profit via the imposition of these fees?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I would need to go back and check on the correspondence for the noble Lord, but this is about making sure that this is covering costs, rather than anything else.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her absence, as well as to my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, for the engagement that we had in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this ought to be a no-brainer. We need consistency from police forces, and we have not seen that. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly added that it is important that industry and all the sectors affected see that, where charges are applied, it is merely to cover legitimate costs and not a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it has become.
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) Where a constable has exercised the power under subsection (1), the constable may also require the person to remove the face covering.(4) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and I have attached my name to it. Before I move on to it, I want briefly to indicate my support for the excellent amendment in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, Amendment 387A, which would give regulatory authorities greater powers to tackle illegal activity that is afflicting many villages, towns and cities in our country and, in particular, is impacting the amenity and quality of life in residential and commercial areas. I very much hope that the House is predisposed to support that amendment.
Amendment 385 seeks to get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the public by covering their faces when breaking the law. It would give police officers the power to stop individuals while wearing a face covering. Following an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in Committee, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also provided that a constable may require the person to remove the face covering.
I think it is fair to say that many of us have been disappointed by the Government’s response so far to all the amendments on cycling, e-bikes and e-scooters, and to our efforts to use the Bill to destroy the business model that makes mobile phone thefts so profitable and attractive to criminals. I do not seek to relitigate our debate last week on mobile phone theft, but I hope that your Lordships’ House can understand the context in which I am moving the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said from our Front Bench in Committee:
“I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 163.]
Our city streets now teem with men—they are usually men—on fast cycles, electric bikes and scooters, whose faces are, even in summer, hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile even if it is not, especially if it is accompanied by loud music or shouts of, “Get out of the way”. Often, the intentions of such concealment are malign; at best, they are hurrying to make fast-food deliveries and endangering people like me who are using the pavement for its proper purpose.
I must stress that we are not talking about this being a London-only issue. For example, newspaper reports show that, in Darlington, there were hundreds of complaints last year about youths on bikes wearing balaclavas and riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians, which is appalling—especially for the elderly or infirm. We need to put a stop to all of this. We need a new power, and we need it now, rather than waiting while the problem grows.
I should make it clear that I am not against cycling or the wearing of masks, scarves or helmets. This is not a prohibition. I merely want the police to have the powers they need to take action where they suspect that a crime is being committed. The powers in the Public Order Act to remove face coverings in designated areas or for local authorities to make public space protection orders—these were mentioned by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, in winding up—are inadequate. They may be useful for hotspots such as Oxford Circus— I strongly support such use—but they ignore the fact that cycle crime is widespread and undermining faith in both the police and the Government.
The Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, later argued in our debate on Report on 4 March that mobile phone theft is coming down a bit: it is down by 12% under this Government. I concede that—it is good news—but it is still at an appalling level, making life miserable for tens of thousands of victims. I made the point that, in 2023, there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London alone, using a motorcycle or an e-bike, and that a face covering was worn in more than 1,000 of those incidents.
We have also heard that the Department for Transport is planning legislation on what it likes to call “micro-mobility”. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, such legislation could in practice take another two years; in fact, it could take longer to secure a legislative slot. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that, when the Food Safety Act was passed, during which time she was a civil servant, it had been waiting for a slot for nearly 10 years; that was until Edwina Currie created a crisis and it became a political priority. In short, we cannot wait.
Moreover, this Bill is the right vehicle for this amendment on face coverings because it concerns the enforcement of criminal law by the police, rather than controls on cyclists, cycles and e-bikes per se. Countries such as Switzerland, France and Denmark are reported to have proscribed facial coverings in public spaces. I am not seeking to go that far.
To summarise, this amendment would allow a police officer—but not other enforcement officers, it should be noted—to stop a person cycling or riding a scooter who is wearing a face covering in such a way as to conceal their identity, and to require them to remove it. It would not ban such face coverings. The penalty would be a level-3 fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tackled this matter gently in Committee, hoping that the Minister would take the opportunity to bring forward a government amendment on Report. In the absence of a more positive response, I would normally have been minded to test the opinion of the House, but, in the interests of the expeditious transaction of House business, I will not do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 386 seeks to enable police officers, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support the work of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I have tabled this amendment for four obvious reasons.
First, the amendment seeks to close a clear operational gap. In a world of keyless and electric vehicles, removing the key no longer guarantees that the vehicle is disabled. Officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, the amendment would create a modest and practical power, not a sweeping new stop power. It would apply only after a lawful stop has taken place and would allow officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about the safety of officers, passengers and the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a live vehicle can reduce the risk of sudden flight, injury, interference with evidence and escalation at the roadside. Fourthly, the amendment contains proper safeguards. The tests of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the PACE codes.
This is a sensible, limited and necessary amendment that I hope the House will support. We are now living in an era when many police officers and members of the public are being harmed, because people can simply drive away as police officers do not have the right to make the situation safe by asking them to step out of the car. I have been through the reasons why this is a proportionate and useful amendment that fills a gap that needs to be filled. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 387A. Let me begin by explaining the reason and intent behind this simple amendment. On 20 January, further to an Urgent Question regarding business rates in the hospitality sector, I asked,
“are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? … We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs”.
In his response, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, stated:
“I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done”. ”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 139.]
The Labour MP Joe Powell stated recently:
“The crackdown on dodgy shops across the country is something the public cares deeply about. Our high streets are being hollowed out by illegitimate businesses that often don’t pay the tax they owe, sell illicit goods and have links to serious organised crime. That has real consequences for those that play by the rules, and for communities fed up with seeing illegal activity in plain sight”.
In response to an Oral Question on 5 March in your Lordships’ House regarding growth in cash-only businesses, the Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Watts —to whom I have given notice that I will be referencing him in this debate—stated that the businesses
“are not there for the customers’ benefit but, in some cases, for the business to avoid tax and other things”.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in response, stated that
“the Government are very aware ... HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around those exact points”. —[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. 1415.]
There is clearly cross-party support for the intention behind this amendment. In addition, I have been informed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute very much supports this amendment, stating that it would be extremely helpful to the trading standards profession and other enforcement agencies. If ever there was a case for sharing intelligence across Whitehall and HMRC together with the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and trading standards, this is it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 385, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and Amendment 386 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. On Amendment 385, masks on cyclists are a difficult area. We all know that cyclists wear masks for reasons of keeping their mouth warm when it is cold. Not everybody who covers their face is a criminal. However, it is clear that some groups of criminals are wearing masks to avoid detection, which the amendment intends to address.
The point I raised in Committee is that, obviously, an officer already has the power to stop any vehicle, so they can stop any cycle without the cyclist having to wear a mask, or for any other reason. My only point is that, if you intend to give this power, there is not much point in having the power if you do not have the power to ask them to remove their mask. So there are difficulties with it, but that is where my support is.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, makes a good point. For as long as I was a police officer, when you stopped vehicles, you always asked them to take the ignition key out to make sure that you did not get run over and they did not run off. But now, if they do not have the key in, the car still goes. Just as importantly, you are always wary of what they are sitting on—a gun, knife or whatever else it might be—so getting them out of the car can be helpful. But I have to say that have been times when they were so big I kept them in the car. There are times when you use discretion.
All that said, I think it is a good amendment when we consider the changes in vehicle design, and it is worth the Government thinking seriously about it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have real reservations about Amendment 385, which I am afraid I cannot support. I am glad that my noble friend is not thinking of testing the opinion of the House.
I speak as a cyclist and I fear, for the reason touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that what is proposed in Amendment 385 is likely to damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists. The truth is that, when bicycling, we all wear a variety of things that are capable of disguising our identity. I did this morning. One always wears a helmet, very frequently one wears goggles or spectacles, either as sunglasses or to keep the rain out, and when it is cold one wears a ski mask or scarf around the bottom of one’s mouth. All these things are capable of concealing one’s identity. I saw several people doing this today when I was bicycling in from King’s Cross. This will damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists.
I ask, rhetorically, what kind of person is the police officer likely to stop? Most probably, I suspect, it will be a person from an ethnic minority, who may be young too. Anybody who has been in Parliament as long as I have knows the trouble that you have from stop and search. That is proportionate, because the carrying of weapons is a serious risk. I acknowledge that it is perfectly correct that cyclists on occasion conceal themselves in order to seize bags and mobiles—that is true—but the remedy is disproportionate.
Furthermore, the amendment gives rise to an interesting question of principle. If it is right to impose this restriction in respect of cyclists, what about motorcyclists? They come into exactly the same category and are perfectly capable of snatching a bag or mobile, and most of them now have visors over their helmets. So, what are you going to do about that?
My own view is that, yes, there is a problem, but this is a disproportionate remedy. It will impact on innocent cyclists, as I venture to describe myself, and it will damage relationships between the police and the cycling community. I was very glad to hear that my noble friend indicated he will not test the opinion of the House because, had he done so, I would have voted against him.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I hear the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about Amendment 385. It would confer a power on a constable to stop a cyclist without any basis, reasonable or otherwise, to suspect that they are committing an offence or are about to commit an offence, when they may have, as the noble Viscount said, a perfectly good reason to be wearing a face mask. They may have influenza, which they do not wish to share with others, or they may be concerned to avoid diesel or petrol fumes on the road. Moreover, the amendment would confer an unrestricted power on the constable to require the person concerned to remove the face covering, with the sanction of a fine or imprisonment, without any requirement on the constable to consider whether that individual has a proper reason for wearing a face mask and without any defence of reasonable excuse. I too could not support such an amendment.
In Amendment 387A, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a powerful case about the mischief which afflicts local communities. My only concern is whether her proposed new clause would do much, if anything, to address this real mischief. The remedy would still depend on enforcement action by local authorities or the police, and would still depend on evidence which is difficult to obtain. I appreciate that police forces are independent, but the Government need to do all they can to encourage them to take action to deal with these problems. If that requires further resources then they should have further resources, but it should be a priority for effective policing.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Buscombe in the thrust of what she is seeking to achieve with her Amendment 387A. I do not think I heard my noble friend say that this would be a panacea or the answer to this complex situation, which clearly needs a multi-agency response. There seems to be a widespread agreement or understanding that there has recently been a substantial proliferation of essentially cash-only businesses on our high streets for nefarious purposes.
Many businesses may well be totally legitimate and carrying on as they have done for many years, but, as one example, in a town not very far away from where I live in the West Country, I recently counted 10 barbers or nail bars in a relatively short street. There are not enough nails or hair within that area, when, only a couple of years ago, approximately two would have sufficed. Either there has been a massive demand by the locals for these services or there are other motives. It seems clear that the police, trading standards and the Government know what is going on.
It is incumbent on the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to acknowledge the scale of what is happening and to give the House an indication of how a truly multi-agency and tough, robust approach will be taken to this issue to nip it in the bud. Where the public see acceptance of widespread law-breaking, there needs to be action for the law to continue to be respected.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord Jackson, especially around people stealing mobile phones. However, when I read proposed new subsection (2), about people covering their face to stop identification, I thought that the problem about that was the same as my noble friend Lord Pannick mentioned. I used to cycle a great deal and I always wore a scarf, partly because of fumes, as he said, but because I seemed to be ingesting a vast number of insects and found this really rather objectionable, whether I had had lunch or not. For that reason, I am rather worried about this amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 385 is the face covering amendment, in which I note that motorcyclists strangely are not covered but scooter riders are. I am not sure I see the need for a new general stand-alone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering.
The police already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, a discretionary power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require any motorist or anybody propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle to stop—and a mechanical vehicle would include motor scooters and motorcycles. That power is very wide. It is generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks. That is perceived as part of the compact between Governments and road users: if you use the roads, the corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic. An extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has rightly drawn attention to the specific case of mobile phone theft, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth, but his amendment does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. It seems to me that that was the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence. As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the need to keep warm, and others referred to the need to avoid fumes.
In terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity, there is the safety aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, considered the avoidance of germs, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, had additional and inventive reasons for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects. However, the serious point is that there can be dangers and there can be fear caused by people nefariously covering their faces. If there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking action. Without that, this amendment is hopeless. For my part, I am not happy when delivery drivers call at people’s homes completely covered up, because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not. At least a home owner can refuse ingress, but I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that.
On Amendment 386, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, it may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless or driverless cars. I should have thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that sometimes it is sensible not to get them to get out of the car if they look particularly big or threatening; nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment, but I would have thought it goes wider than driverless or keyless cars.
As to Amendment 387A from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I suspect that the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with her speech about organised criminal networks and driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns—she even covered the quiet lanes in our villages—but her amendment, on which I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate or non-tax-paying business from our streets. The amendment is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. For my part, before that amendment could be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that it would have some impact on these offences. I would also like to hear the Government’s view. At the moment, there is very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and also addressing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am concerned that the noble Lords feel, “What’s the point?” That is one of the reasons we are where we are in this country, which is in a terrible place. What I am suggesting is a small amendment that would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys; to start making life more difficult for them; to extend these closure orders so that we are being a little more efficient about use of police time and our courts. We are hearing that we are going to lose our juries because of lack of court time. This is an example where, if we had longer periods of closure, it would allow our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than just the few attacks that Machinize has carried out so far. We need to find as many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on. What message will it send to the public if we do not bother to do some of the easy bits to get this going?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will just say that was quite a long intervention, particularly for Report stage.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will answer very briefly, and perhaps on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as well, because I suspect that what we are saying is roughly the same. I am entirely with the noble Baroness on the question of juries, and on the question of needing to do something to reduce the kind of crime, particularly by organised criminal gangs, happening in our villages, towns and streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the need for more resources for policing. But the problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that there is no evidence that I can see, or that has been shown to us, that extending these periods would do anything significant to reduce crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lady Buscombe for their amendments.
Amendment 385 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jackson today, would, as we have heard, grant the police powers to stop a person riding a bike and wearing a face covering, and then require them to remove that. The context of this is the epidemic of phone theft. The United Kingdom now accounts for almost 40% of Europe’s phone thefts despite being only 10% of the market. In London, there is one mobile phone theft every seven and a half minutes. It is to that issue that my noble friend Lord Jackson is directing his amendment. He has pinpointed what I think we all accept is a very serious issue: the actions of intimidating masked cyclists stealing mobile phones. He set out ably the rationale for his amendment, although when doing so he indicated that he did not intend to test the opinion of the House.
Amendment 387A from my noble friend Lady Buscombe seeks to amend powers relating to closure notices and closure orders. As other noble Lords have recognised, the character of our high streets has changed dramatically over the past decade. Alongside the pressures of online retail and the economic challenges facing traditional business, we have seen the proliferation of premises that appear at best dubious and at worst directly connected to organised criminal activity. The scale of the problem should concern us all. We all know the types of shops at issue here; they appear almost overnight in our cities and towns’ prime retail locations, often with few customers but somehow able to sustain some of the highest rents in the country. Investigations by local authorities have uncovered counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco, unregulated vapes and sometimes sweets containing additives banned under UK food standards.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe proposes to alter the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by extending the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and the maximum period for closure orders from three months to 12 months. As my noble friend said so powerfully this afternoon, there are many institutions in support of this, notably the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which has been calling out for greater powers to tackle rogue retailers.
The present legal framework provides tools to deal with such premises, but in practice the existing time limits are often insufficient. A closure notice lasting only 48 hours may simply delay the problem rather than solve it. Criminals can wait out short closure periods, reopen under an altered business name and transfer activities elsewhere before enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations. Similarly, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may be inadequate where organised criminal networks are involved. By the time the order expires, the underlying criminal structure remains intact, ready to resume operations.
I fully recognise that the current periods were set out by the previous Conservative Government in 2014, but the passage of time—12 years since then—has demonstrated that more needs to be done to restore our high streets and communities, and to end the scourge of criminality blighting them both. Surely the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe is a step in the right direction and if she wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.
As we have heard, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington’s Amendment 386 addresses a practical and important issue. It has arisen from the evolution of modern vehicle technology and the difficulties police officers face on the front line. As he said, modern vehicles can remain powered even when drivers exit. The absence of a physical key means that officers cannot rely on the traditional safeguards that once existed. My noble friend’s amendment would provide officers with a clear statutory basis to direct drivers to exit the vehicle and remain outside while the stop is dealt with. It would also allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance or codes of practice to ensure that power is exercised consistently and appropriately.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister gives careful consideration to that amendment and to all amendments in this group. I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will speak to each in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, moved Amendment 385 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s winter of action that took place over the Christmas period, between the beginning of December and the end of January. That complemented a summer campaign that focused particularly on the issues that the noble Lord mentioned, namely anti-social behaviour and mobile phone theft. As the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory comments, the actions that we took over that 12-month period resulted in a 12% fall in mobile phone theft in London. That is still not good enough; it needs to fall further. It is a horrendous crime that is damaging to tourism and to the individual, but there has been a fall in the first year of this Government due to the hotspot action that we took. The winter and summer action campaigns took place in 650 town centres across the country, and were supported by additional resources from local police forces to deal with this issue. We know that we will see more analyst data in the coming months as to the impact of that action.
My point echoes some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. The Government’s road safety strategy was published on 7 January and sets out commitments to increase robust enforcement of road traffic laws to protect road users. It is under the auspices of the Department for Transport and indicates an important role for the police to play in taking action against the type of behaviour that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is concerned about.
As I stated in Committee, the police have a suite of powers under existent legislation to tackle street crime facilitated by bicycles and scooters and, as the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have mentioned, to address the use of face coverings intended to conceal identity. I encourage the police to make full use of those powers, especially in the crime hotspots that we have identified. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, permits the police to require individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas, so the police could designate a particular areas, such as a high street, where they believe crime is likely to take place. In those areas, the police have the powers under that legislation to remove face coverings.
There is a range of reasons for wearing a face covering that I am not going to pray in aid. Those were made very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. They focused on weather, ill health, fumes, and the added protein of insects going into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. These are all valid reasons. They are not ones I pray in aid strongly today, because the legislation is there.
This includes Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, referred to. It provides for anybody driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle to stop if directed to do so by a constable. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 permits police to seize motor vehicles that are being used in an anti-social manner. Furthermore, Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits police to seize motor vehicles. That includes, in this case, e-scooters being driven without an appropriate licence or insurance. I encourage the police to use those powers. Public space protection orders can also be used. Therefore, there are reasonable powers on the statute book that can be used to meet the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment.
I turn to Amendment 386, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I said in Committee that I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment, and it is supported by the Police Federation. I want to see police officers doing their vital job. As I mentioned, we recently published the road safety strategy. The consultation on that strategy includes proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences and specific proposals on the existing offence of failing to stop and report following a collision. It also seeks views on related measures around compliance when drivers are stopped by the police—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The Department for Transport is considering the results of that consultation and aims to respond when it closes on 11 May. I encourage noble Lords to refer this debate to that consultation.
I have great sympathy with the amendment. I want to ensure that police officers have the necessary tools to enforce our road traffic laws and make our roads safe, but I ask the noble Lord to wait for the outcome of the consultation. Following the consultation, there will be areas that we could potentially take forward at some point when legislative time allows.
I turn next to Amendment 387A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I say straightaway that she raises an important point. Not all the businesses that she mentioned are criminal outlets, but there are a number of businesses that are potentially involved in criminality. The new high streets task force is looking at whether the current data sharing between agencies supporting enforcement teams is appropriate as we want to maximise our response.
In the summer, the Government will publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy that will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including better sharing and exploitation of financial information. Further, the Home Office has a cross-government high streets illegality task force that is developing strategic long-term policy to respond to money laundering and associated illegality in UK high streets, including forms of economic crime that the noble Baroness mentioned, as well as tax evasion, illegal working, systematic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit, and issues to do with HMRC and trading standards.
In the summer of last year, I had the great honour of attending a raid in Birkenhead, in Merseyside. HMRC, the National Crime Agency, Merseyside Police and trading standards raided a premises that was allegedly—I use that word because I am not sure whether the matter has come to court yet—defrauding HMRC, selling illegal goods and purporting to be a legitimate business when it was not. That raid was perfectly reasonable, so action is currently being taken.
I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who supported a similar level of action, that the Government are trying to design a number of actions to drive out illegal businesses in a range of ways. As the noble Baroness said, they undercut legitimate businesses, reduce government tax revenue and illegally employ people. That is not good or acceptable, and we need to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment to increase the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and closure orders from three months to 12 months, would assist in that process.
In Clause 3, we are, as the noble Baroness knows, increasing the duration of closure notices from 48 to 72 hours. That gives the police and others time to investigate initially. If her proposal was taken, does she think that having more empty premises on the high street or in a village for 12 or six months is good for the high street as a whole? I am not sure that it is. We do need to drive out illegality, and I accept that there is illegality going on, but I hope I have pointed out the challenges we have. The increase to 72 hours in the Bill will help address operational challenges and give agencies more time to progress an application for a closure order and to protect any victims and the community in the interim while a closure order is sought.
The closure power itself, as the noble Baroness will accept, is a very powerful tool and routinely used in a housing context to protect the most vulnerable. I argue that the extension to 72 hours in Clause 3 is sufficient to provide respite to victims and to the community from anti-social behaviour. Closure orders are intended to provide short-term relief, which is why we are increasing their duration only by a further 24 hours. I say to the noble Baroness that, while a closure notice cannot prohibit access to anyone who habitually lives on the premises, a closure order can. Closure orders are intended as temporary, targeted measures, not long-term sanctions, but I accept that there is a real issue that needs to be addressed and I hope it can be with the measures I have outlined. What the Government are doing now, on a cross-government basis with HMRC, the Home Office, the police, the National Crime Agency and trading standards locally, is trying to root out where that illegality takes place, and further action will be taken in due course.
I hope that, with those reassurances, despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his indication that he is not going to press his and I hope that the assurances I have given and the favourable view I have of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, will allow us to complete a proper consultation on that point and that he will not press his amendment, either.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate, and thank in particular my noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his interesting intervention in the debate. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that these are permissive, discretionary powers, not blanket ban powers, and they are targeted at a particular subset of criminals. There is clearly a quantum difference between people passing through a locale who are dressed to cycle on the public highway and those who are flooding the zone on e-bikes, dressed in black, with helmets and face coverings, with a rucksack, who may wish to rob a shop or assault someone by snatching their mobile telephone. With all due respect to my noble friend, I think his concern is misplaced, but I fully respect the arguments he made.
I also thank the Minister. We have had a lot of debate on this issue, and I am partially reassured by the measures that the Government have brought forward that are currently in train. I hope that we can return to this issue, not least the breaking of the mobile phone theft model that organised crime is engaged in. In the meantime, as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Direction to exit vehicle following a lawful stop(1) Where a constable in uniform, or a traffic officer, has required a vehicle to stop under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (power of police to stop vehicles), the constable may direct the driver and any passenger to— (a) exit the vehicle, and(b) remain outside the vehicle for so long as is reasonably necessary for the exercise of the constable’s functions.(2) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person fails to comply with a direction given under subsection (1).(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(4) A constable may use reasonable force, where necessary and proportionate, to secure compliance with a direction given under subsection (1) for the purposes of officer safety, public safety, or prevention of escape or interference with evidence.(5) The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice or guidance relating to the exercise of powers under this section and such codes may be incorporated into Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.(6) In this section “vehicle” has the same meaning as in section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment closes an operational safety gap created by keyless and electric vehicles, where removing a key no longer disables a car. It provides a modest, post-stop direction power so officers can safely manage encounters outside a live vehicle. Safeguards are built in through reasonableness, proportionality and PACE-linked guidance.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am partially sated by what he said about the consultation that is coming along, but we all know that consultations can take for ever, and we may not get the outcome that I am seeking. I want to make the point that we have already had officers in London and in Essex injured by people deciding to drive away. In most other jurisdictions across the western world, this law has been put in place because they have already had deaths. I think it is just a matter of time before an officer is seriously hurt if we do not address this issue. But, as I said, the Minister was very generous in his answer and has given a way forward. I accept that way forward, so I shall not move my amendment.
Baroness Buscombe
“Duration of closure notices and orders: extension(1) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 77 (duration of closure notices)—(a) in subsection (2), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”, and(b) in subsection (3), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”.(3) In section 80(6) (power of court to make closure order), for “3” substitute “12”.(4) In section 82 (extension of closure orders)—(a) in subsection (7), for “3” substitute “12”, and(b) for subsection (8) substitute— “(8) The period of a closure order may be extended for another 12 months after the original extended 12 month period has elapsed, and there is no maximum duration of the closure order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the period in which the police and the magistrates’ courts may make closure notices and closure orders, to 7 days and 12 months respectively.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I heard what the Minister said and I support everything that the Government are trying to do to attack the scourge on our society, and all our villages and towns. I am sorry to say that the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, seem rather defeatist. If this is not a panacea—which it is not—it is a nudge to keep us finding different ways to intimidate these people and say to them, “Stop doing this and destroying our villages, towns and cities”. I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen and my noble friend on the Front Bench for their support and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Young of Acton
“Abolition of non-crime hate incidents (No.2)(1) Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom.(2) No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a NCHI.(3) Subsection (2) does not mean a police authority or police officer cannot record, retain or otherwise process an incident that is relevant for the prevention or detection of a crime, or for another policing purpose, provided it complies with incident recording guidance issued by the College of Policing or the Secretary of State.(4) Guidance in relation to incident recording must have due regard to the right to freedom of expression.(5) Any historic records of NCHIs which do not meet the incident recording threshold as set out in guidance issued by the College of Policing or the Secretary of State, must —(a) not be disclosed in a Disclosure and Barring Service check;(b) be deleted upon discovery.(6) For the purposes of this section—“non-crime hate incident” means any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, sex or transgender identity;“police authority” means a body specified in section 174(1);“police officer” means any person acting under the authority of a police authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would end the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensure that any future incident recording guidance has due regard to the right to freedom of expression.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Strasburger, for co-sponsoring this amendment. I was disappointed to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has apparently changed his mind. In Committee, he said:
“I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 177.]
I urge your Lordships to support this amendment because placing a statutory limit on what non-crimes the police can investigate you for and record against your name is in the interests not just of my noble friends on this side of the House, some of whom have had non-crime hate incidents recorded against them, but of noble Lords opposite and the Liberal Democrats. We must remember that the political wind can change. It is in your Lordships’ interests to place a statutory limit on what the police can investigate and record as non-crimes. It is in all our interests, and it really should be put on a statutory footing. For that reason, I intend to divide the House.
Baroness D'Souza
“Amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to introduce public interest compensation orders(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 133(b) (compensation orders), insert“, or(c) to make a payment to one or more relevant organisations for public interest or social purposes (“public interest compensation order”).(2) In this Chapter, “relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in Schedule 5A (relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders).”(3) After section 135 (making a compensation order), insert—“135A Public interest compensation orders(1) When convicting a person of a relevant offence, the court shall consider whether to issue a public interest compensation order, and what the terms of that order should be.(2) In this section “relevant offence” means an offence listed in Schedule 5B (relevant offences for public interest compensation orders).(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the relevant offences listed in Schedule 5B.(4) In determining whether to make a public interest compensation order against an offender, the amount to be paid under such an order, or to which relevant organisations the payments should be made, the court must, in addition to the factor in section 135(3), have regard to—(a) the rights of victims of human rights violations (inside or outside the United Kingdom) to receive effective reparation and remedy,(b) the fact that individuals who are not proven to be direct victims of the offender’s offence may nevertheless be victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related,(c) the broader impact of the offender’s offence on victims of human rights violations in the United Kingdom or in other countries, (d) where there is a large number of victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related, the urgency of victims’ needs (which may vary depending on the harms that they have suffered),(e) where the relevant offence is an offence under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the purposes of the relevant regulations and any human rights violations arising in connection with conduct that these regulations seek to discourage, and(f) whether it would be appropriate to make another type of compensation order and, if so, whether the offender has sufficient means to pay both orders, as well as the need to prioritise compensation to direct victims of the offender’s offence.(5) If the court considers issuing a public interest compensation order, the court may (but is not required to) ask the Secretary of State to recommend the relevant organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid and if the court makes such a request—(a) the Secretary of State shall, within 90 days (the “relevant period”), recommend to the court in writing one or more organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid (the “recommendation”) and in doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the same factors as under subsection (4) above;(b) the court may issue a public interest compensation order after the earlier of—(i) the court having received a recommendation, and(ii) the relevant period having expired;(c) if a recommendation has been made within the relevant period, the court may take it into account in issuing a public interest compensation order but shall not be bound by it.(6) The court may direct that confiscated funds be paid to a relevant organisation subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the organisations listed in Schedule 5A and the Secretary of State shall review the organisations listed in Schedule 5A at least annually.(8) If, under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State recommends one or more organisations that are not listed in Schedule 5B, the organisations recommended by the Secretary of State shall be considered relevant organisations for the purposes of the public interest compensation order at issue.(9) For the purposes of this section, a court may issue a public interest compensation order regardless of whether there is a direct connection between the offender’s conduct and the harm suffered by the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries of the public interest compensation order.”(4) After Schedule 5 (Breach, revocation and amendment of reparation order), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 5ARelevant organisations for public interest compensation ordersThe following organisations—The Trust Fund for Victims, created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.The Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, or any successor body or attached fund. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981.”(5) After Schedule 5A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 5BRelevant offences for public interest compensation ordersThe following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—Offences arising under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020. It would allow the courts to award compensation orders not only to individuals but also for public interest or social purposes, thereby enabling the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to be more readily used to compensate victims of offences under the UK’s sanctions legislation.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, I shall move the amendment, although my defence of it will be less than perfect, given that I have only just seen it. However, I must first thank the Minister for having kindly organised a meeting between the noble Lord and officials at the Home Office in order to discuss the Bill. That was extremely useful and important.
I support the Bill and am trying to find quickly the reason why I support these amendments. They would enable the courts to award compensation to public interest companies instead of simply to victims. The current mechanism is that, in the case of sanctions in particular, the moneys recovered from sanctions, which can often be substantial, go straight to the Government. Admittedly, it is important that the Government have resources in order to strengthen enforcement mechanisms, but it seems to me somewhat unfair that the victims do not get a look in in terms of compensation when, after all, the sanctions have been devised in order to protect victims and, indeed, reward them. Although we recognise that compensation is not always monetary, it is important that there is official acknowledgement of the wrongs that have been done to them.
The fact that the courts cannot enable the money derived to go to public interest compensation is an anomaly that I think needs to be corrected. One of the reasons for that that the Minister gave in the meeting, which, as I mentioned, he kindly set up, is that it would be difficult to determine who was a victim and what sort of compensation was necessary or just, simply because the number of victims of aggression, particularly in the context of conflict, is huge, wide and difficult to determine. The Government are concerned that the right money goes to the right victims. That is acknowledged, and it is a very important point.
However, Redress, which has drafted many of the amendments on this aspect of the Bill, has pointed out that there already exist relevant organisations that can receive funds for victims, including the Trust Fund for Victims, which was created by the Assembly of States Parties, in accordance with Article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. There is also the Register of Damage, for damage caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by resolution or any successor body or attached fund. There is also the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly through its resolution of 16 December 1981. It is also worth pointing out the relative ease that Ministers and the Government would have in keeping a register of those organisations that receive compensation funds and monitoring them.
In essence, it seems just and fair that the victims of aggression, particularly in the area of conflict, and those it is eventually agreed should receive compensation, should in fact receive that money; it goes to the Government—the Treasury and other sources within government—in order, as I have said, to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms. I entirely agree with that, but I am not sure that all the money should go there; some of it should be set aside for the victims. Again, I stress that the reason for this is that, although sanctions are set up to retrieve funds meant for the victims, the fact is that the victims do not always get this money. I beg to move.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank the Minister and his officials for all they have done on this clause. Might the Minister look at this again before Third Reading or at some other point to see whether it is possible to do what we have requested? I am grateful for all the meetings and the help we have had from everybody; let us hope that we can do something.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we support in principle Amendments 387C and 387D, the first of which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.
These amendments address a moral and legal imperative, ensuring that assets confiscated from those who violate our laws, particularly our sanctions regime, are used to provide redress to the victims of those very same violations. My own amendment in Committee focused on a ministerial power to create a fund via regulations but Amendments 387C and 387D would place this power where I believe it properly belongs: with the judiciary. By amending the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, these amendments would grant the Crown Court the discretion to award compensation for public interest or social purposes. This would ensure that, when a court deprives a defendant of the benefits of their crime, it can simultaneously direct those funds towards the restoration of the communities or individuals harmed.
As the organisation Redress has highlighted with great clarity, the UK is currently an outlier. Both the United States and the European Union have already established mechanisms to repurpose seized assets. In 2023, the US successfully transferred over $4 million seized from a Russian oligarch to support war veterans in Ukraine. Here in the UK, we have frozen assets on an unprecedented scale following the invasion of Ukraine, yet we operate in a regulatory lacuna where we can freeze and eventually confiscate but we cannot compensate effectively. Without these amendments, we are, in effect, telling the victims of state-sponsored aggression and human rights abuses that, although we will punish the perpetrator, we will do nothing for the survivor.
This is not about the convenience of the state; it is about clarity of justice. We must move away from a system that treats the proceeds of sanctions violations as a windfall for the Treasury and instead treat them as a resource for reparations. I urge the Minister to recognise that there is cross-party unanimity on this issue. Sympathy at the Dispatch Box in Committee was a start, but sympathy does not stop crime—and it certainly does not provide reparations.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, as we have heard, raise questions around how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to these amendments in my noble friend’s absence.
My noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear: to ensure that, where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused. In Committee, I spoke sympathetically on these amendments. I shall not seek to repeat the points I made then but other noble Lords explored how these proposals would interact with the existing confiscation and forfeiture regimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those are complex frameworks, and any changes to them must be carefully considered, but these amendments make an important point about ensuring that justice is not only punitive but restorative. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for moving this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Goudie for speaking in support of the noble Baroness.
As the noble Baroness and my noble friend know, I arranged a meeting for the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to discuss these matters with Redress. Both attended, as did other Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I set out then, as I did in Committee, the rationale for the Government’s position in relation to these amendments. I should say to my noble friend Lady Goudie that, although today I will restate the Government’s position, which is not to accept the amendments, we always keep these matters under review and will continue to do so.
The compensation of victims is an extremely serious issue and something that we take seriously. Last time out, in Committee, I laid out the UK’s various mechanisms for victim compensation; I will not repeat those now, in the interests of time. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raises this issue in the context of Russia’s war with Ukraine. I appreciate the continued support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the approach that has been tabled today, but, if I may, I shall speak to this amendment in the context of where the noble Lord, Lord Banner, was, I think, coming from. I acknowledge the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, has spoken to me on many occasions about the need for wider community compensation, rather than just for individuals, in the context of the war in Ukraine. I affirm this Government’s support for Ukraine. Indeed, the UK is already one of Ukraine’s largest supporters and donors, providing significant financial aid alongside working with international partners to support Ukraine as much as possible. The UK has already committed £21.8 billion, of which £13 billion is for military support, £5.3 billion is for non-military support and £3.5 billion is for UKEF cover; there is also an ongoing commitment to provide £3 billion annually either for as long as it takes or until 2030-31. We are also supporting, along with the G7, loans backing profits belonging to Russian sovereign assets in the EU, as well as the interest on those assets being put towards Ukrainian interests.
Therefore, there are a number of issues on which we are fully supportive and where we are using resources to meet the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. However, I say to him and to those who have spoken in favour of the amendment today that, given the limited number of cases to which these amendments would apply, they would create only a minimal impact on the people of Ukraine. I suggest that it would be better for us, in the initial stages, to focus our efforts on the larger international mechanisms for compensation, in line with our international partners, which provide far greater funds. I have pointed in particular not just to the UK’s direct taxation commitment but to the G7’s $50 billion ERA loan, which is backed by interest generated from Russian sovereign assets in the EU and the UK.
I understand the noble Baroness’s support on this issue. I particularly understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, around this matter, as well as his desire to help and support our friends in Ukraine; I completely share that desire. However, following the rationale that I have laid out, I suggest that this would be best done through the current mechanisms of government, not through these amendments. I will keep all matters under review but I feel that these amendments would distract the UK—and, indeed, our partners—from the core principle of supporting Ukraine, particularly in this time of great need. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to withdraw Amendment 387C.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister as always for his response and for the support that the Government are providing, particularly in Ukraine after the Russian aggression. I still feel, however, that the definitions within the Bill of “victim” and “loss” are too narrow and indirect victims are clearly not eligible. We all know that there are many tragic indirect victims of war crimes. It is very likely that there will be more sanctions to come and that there will be further need for victim compensation. At present, there are 2,500 Russia-targeted sanctions. The Government still retain most of the proceeds of these.
Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said about keeping this under review. Given the fact that I do not think these amendments have been properly addressed by me—although they have by the Member opposite and by the Opposition Front Bench—I will not press them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 387C.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“51A In section 161E(5) (making an income reduction order) (as inserted by section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2026), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) section 15A (where court sentences before confiscation proceedings).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds, to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill, an amendment of a provision inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code.
Lord Katz
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require child cruelty offenders to notify specified matters to the police.(2) “Child cruelty offender” means a person who, in England and Wales—(a) is convicted of a child cruelty offence,(b) is found not guilty of a child cruelty offence by reason of insanity,(c) is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against the person in respect of a child cruelty offence, or(d) is cautioned in respect of a child cruelty offence after the person has admitted the offence,on or after the day on which the regulations come into force.(3) A “child cruelty offence” means an offence listed in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences).(4) The regulations may in particular make provision—(a) about the period for which a child cruelty offender is subject to notification requirements (which may be an indefinite period);(b) about the occasions on which, or intervals at which, a child cruelty offender is required to give notifications;(c) about the time limits for giving a notification;(d) about how notifications are to be given to the police (which may include provision for notifications to be given to persons authorised by the police in accordance with the regulations);(e) requiring a child cruelty offender to allow photographs and fingerprints to be taken for the purposes of verifying the offender’s identity; (f) requiring or authorising a person with parental responsibility for a child cruelty offender to give notifications, where the offender is under 18;(g) for specified notification requirements to apply to a child cruelty offender only if the offender has been given notice by a police officer, in accordance with the regulations, that those requirements apply;(h) for reviews of whether a child cruelty offender should remain subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements;(i) for a child cruelty offender to cease to be subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements, following a review.(5) If the regulations make provision for a child cruelty offender to be subject to notification requirements for an indefinite period, they must make provision under which the child cruelty offender may cease to be subject to the notification requirements following a review.(6) The matters which may be specified in the regulations as matters which must be notified include, in particular, any matter a relevant offender is required to notify to the police by or under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as it has effect in England and Wales).(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by the regulations;“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations imposing notification requirements on persons who commit child cruelty offences.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to move the government amendments in this group, which will establish the powers needed to introduce a clear and robust regime for managing those who have committed appalling child cruelty offences. Before turning to the detail, I pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of campaigners, including Tony and Paula Hudgell. Their tireless advocacy, grounded in personal tragedy and driven by a determination to protect other children from harm, has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate and legislative action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Helen Grant MP, for their constructive engagement in helping us to deliver this important step forward.
We continue scrutiny of this Bill at a pivotal moment for the management of dangerous offenders. The police system underpinning the sex offenders register is transitioning from the legacy ViSOR database to the new multi-agency public protection arrangements, which will deliver modern, integrated risk-management capabilities. At the same time, as part of the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, we are examining how best to strengthen community-based offender management across the system. In that context, and in recognition of the complexity of this area, we have taken the decision to provide for the framework of a new scheme in the Bill, while setting out the operational detail in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Government’s amendments therefore create the power to establish a set of familiar tools for police to apply in managing such offenders: notification requirements; clear rules about what must be notified, when and how; and the powers necessary for the police and partner agencies to assess and respond to risk consistently and proportionately. Important safeguards and parameters are built into the structure of these powers to ensure that the scheme adheres strictly to the framework approved by Parliament. The qualifying offences and thresholds in the new schedule introduced by Amendment 395A ensure that the regime is squarely focused on serious harm to children arising from their own caregivers, including offences such as child cruelty, causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm, and female genital mutilation. This is a coherent and tightly drawn list which will close the safeguarding gap identified by campaigners.
The regime provides for maximum penalties which are consistent with those faced by registered sex offenders and proportionate to the gravity of deliberately evading such monitoring. It ensures that any entry or search must be authorised by a justice of the peace and used solely for the purposes of risk assessment. Regulations establishing the scheme will be developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and the operational flexibility that is required to respond swiftly to the evolving landscape and potential changes to patterns of offending or evasion.
For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, not to press his Amendment 389 and to join the House in supporting the Government’s approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the government amendments are welcomed from these Benches. In their scope and depth, they ensure that offenders who have committed the heinous crime of child cruelty will now be required to notify, and will be monitored carefully to ensure that their access to children is supervised to protect children from such offenders. As we debated in Committee, these offences need to be brought into the safe scope of high-level offender management.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, about Tony Hudgell and his family. They are doughty campaigners who have shone a spotlight on an area that most of society has ignored over the years.
I read Amendment 389 with interest. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the Minister, whether proposed new subsection 6, identifying relevant offences, would be covered in government Amendment 388C.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, concerning the creation of a child cruelty register. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of this proposal over the course of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House and the other place.
I remind all noble Lords that the reforms before us today, as we have heard, are the result of determined campaigning over a long period. I place on record the sincere thanks of the Opposition Benches to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell, whose tireless advocacy has brought this issue to national attention. I am incredibly pleased that Parliament has responded to this campaign and I welcome very much the Government’s decision to accept our proposals and bring forward their own amendments to establish a notification regime for child cruelty offenders. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for his engagement on this matter.
As noble Lords will appreciate, there remain differences of view about the precise scope of the register and the offences that should fall within it. From these Benches we have consistently argued that the register should cover a broader range of offences to ensure that the system captures a full spectrum of conduct that poses a continuing risk to children. While the Government’s proposals do not go as far as we might have wished in that regard, they nevertheless represent real progress and a clear acknowledgement that the existing gap in the law must be closed.
We welcome the Government’s willingness to move in this direction and hope that, as the policy is implemented, there will remain scope to review and strengthen the regime where necessary. I have one question for the Minister. Because it is vital that the register is established as soon as possible, can he give from the Dispatch Box an indication of possible timelines for when that might happen?
Once again, I thank Paula Hudgell and Helen Grant MP, who have performed a tremendous service in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament and the wider public. I hope that all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House will join me in recognising their efforts. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be moving Amendment 389 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the consensual approach taken by the Liberal Democrat and the Opposition Front Benches. I will answer the questions in the order that they were given.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the offences listed in proposed new subsection 6 to be inserted by the Opposition’s Amendment 389. The offences that are covered are listed in government Amendment 395A and largely overlap with those in the opposition amendment.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we will set up the register as soon as practicable when the new MAPPS system is up and running. I cannot commit to a more solid timeline than that, but I hope he will take the way that the Government have responded to the campaign and the amendments as a promissory note, shall I say, that we are taking this matter very seriously and will act with as much speed as we can practically muster. With that, I beg to move.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: enforcement(1) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may provide for a person to commit an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they—(a) fail to comply with a specified notification requirement, or(b) in purported compliance with a specified notification requirement, notify information that they know to be false.(2) The maximum penalty specified for an offence must not exceed (but may be less than)—(a) on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term of the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term of 5 years or a fine (or both).(3) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may confer on a constable power to enter and search relevant premises.(4) The regulations must provide for the power to be exercisable only—(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace (which may authorise the use of reasonable force),(b) where it is necessary for a constable to enter and search the premises for the purpose of assessing the risks posed by a child cruelty offender who is subject to notification requirements, and(c) where a constable has sought, and been unable to obtain, entry to the premises for that purpose on at least two occasions.(5) Premises are “relevant premises” if there are reasonable grounds to believe (because of a notification given under the regulations or otherwise) that the child cruelty offender resides, or may regularly be found, at the premises.(6) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders);“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause allows regulations under my previous new clause to create offences, and to confer powers of entry on constables.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: power to amend Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences)(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend—(a) Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) (child cruelty offences);(b) section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation) for the purposes of that Schedule.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may add an offence to Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) only if—(a) the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the harm that may be caused to persons under 18 by conduct constituting the offence, and(b) the offence is not listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences to which Part 2 of that Act applies) (disregarding for this purpose any condition subject to which an offence is listed in that Schedule). (3) Where an offence is capable of being committed against a person aged 18 or over, an amendment adding it to Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) must include a condition that the victim was under 18.(4) An amendment of Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) or section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation) within subsection (5) does not apply to convictions, findings and cautions before the amendment takes effect.(5) An amendment is within this subsection if it—(a) adds an offence,(b) removes a condition relating to an offence, or(c) changes a condition in such a way as to cause an offence committed by or against a person of a particular age in certain circumstances, or resulting in a particular disposal, to be within the Schedule when it would not otherwise be.(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause confers powers to amend the list of child cruelty offences in my new Schedule inserted before Schedule 21.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation(1) In section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders)(2), a reference to a conviction includes a reference to a finding of a magistrates’ court, where the court makes an order under section 37(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, that the accused did the act charged.(2) The following provisions do not apply for the purposes of section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders)(2)—(a) section 82(2) of the Sentencing Code, and(b) section 187(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(conviction with absolute or conditional discharge deemed not to be a conviction).(3) A reference in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to an offence (“offence A”) includes—(a) an attempt or conspiracy to commit offence A;(b) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to which offence A is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person believed would be committed;(c) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of offence A.(4) References in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to a person’s age are to the person’s age at the time of the offence.(5) References in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to imprisonment include—(a) a period of detention which a person is liable to serve under a detention and training order;(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution;(c) a sentence of detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; (d) a sentence of custody for life under section 272 of the Sentencing Code (including one passed as a result of section 210A of the Armed Forces Act 2006); (e) an extended sentence under section 254 of the Sentencing Code (including one passed as a result of section 221A of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of my new clauses and new Schedule about notification requirements for child cruelty offenders.
Baroness Sater
“Review of the criminal records disclosure regime(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, undertake a review of the operation of the criminal records disclosure regime in England and Wales.(2) The report must, in particular, consider—(a) the impact of criminal record disclosure and DBS checks on individuals’ access to education, training and employment,(b) the criteria and processes for filtering and disclosure on basic, standard and enhanced checks, and(c) whether legislative, procedural or regulatory changes may be necessary to ensure that the regime appropriately balances public protection with rehabilitation.(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult relevant bodies, including employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and representative organisations for people with convictions.(4) A report of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament within 12 months on the operation of the criminal records disclosure regime, including the impact of DBS checks on access to education, training and employment and whether any legislative, procedural or regulatory changes are needed.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within 12 months of the Act coming into force a report reviewing the criminal records disclosure regime. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who unfortunately cannot be here today, for supporting it.
The purpose of the amendment is straightforward: to ensure that a thorough review of the criminal records disclosure regime is undertaken within 12 months. We know that having a criminal record can have profound consequences for individuals’ ability to rehabilitate and move forward with their lives. It is therefore important that we understand whether the current regime is operating proportionately and whether changes might be required to ensure that it strikes the right balance between public protection and rehabilitation. Many noble Lords have in the past raised concerns about aspects of the criminal records disclosure regime. I believe that this is a timely moment to bring this amendment forward, so that we can look at this in the round.
Your Lordships will know that I have previously spoken in this House on, and put forward amendments where I have highlighted, the postcode lottery that can arise when an offence is committed before the age of 18 but the individual is not brought before a court until after their 18th birthday. In these circumstances, for example, a young person who might otherwise have received a youth disposal such as a referral order may instead be sentenced as an adult, simply because their case reaches court after they have turned 18. That difference can have significant long-term consequences, including for what later appears on a Disclosure and Barring Service check and therefore for access to employment, education and training, and indeed their rehabilitation prospects.
I thank the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt —for engaging constructively with me on this matter. Her willingness to meet me shows that there is genuine openness within government to look at this anomaly more closely. The Justice Secretary has recently indicated that the Government are considering opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime, particularly in relation to childhood offences, with the aim of ensuring that the system is clear and proportionate and does not unduly harm future job prospects. That signals recognition that reform is needed.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be helpful for the review also to consider the anomaly and to begin to address the issues I have concerns about, which I believe are deeply unfair. In preparing the report, the Secretary of State would be asked to consult widely, including with employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and organisations representing people with convictions, to ensure that the review reflected the experience of those most affected. Accepting this modest amendment would be a good and constructive step forward: simply a request for a review that could help inform future policy.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I very much support this amendment. In Committee, I tabled an amendment, which was debated—the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, was acting Minister at the time—and would have prevented a criminal record being kept for children who are prosecuted by private rail companies under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and criminal records being created as a result, because there seemed to be a practice in certain magistrates’ courts for prosecuting such children for what were inadvertent, youthful transgressions, which were wrong but certainly did not merit a criminal record which, as I understand it, could be searched by potential employers for between eight and 11 years. I would like a commitment that this review, if it takes place, will cover that sort of case. It is all part of that bigger picture of children having criminal records created against them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to give enthusiastic support to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I think that a criminal record disclosure regime is very important—we all understand that we do not want the worst of the worst working with children and so on —but the impact on rehabilitation is quite serious.
On Monday evening, it was therefore a great relief when the Minister said to those of us who were worried that non-crime hate incidents might be stored on a criminal database that could be used to prevent future employment or volunteering opportunities that that was a misplaced concern—although having the word “hate” by your name on a police database might not be what one would want.
In this instance, we are talking about people who have criminal convictions, have been in prison or have been serving their time. In working with former prisoners, I have known former drug addicts and gang members who have been invaluable as volunteers or in working with young people or youth services, but many of them are simply kept out of being able to help because of the barring scheme. A group of ex-prisoners that I had some dealing with wanted to do some work with care homes—we desperately need people to work in care homes. They were fully rehabilitated but were basically going to be barred from doing so. That seemed to me to be unfair and counterproductive. There was also a teenage victim of a grooming gang—a victim—who was convicted for soliciting prostitution at the age of 16. She should get a pardon, of course, but the main thing is that she is barred even from going on her own child’s school trips. She desperately wants to help out in the school, but she cannot.
These things should be looked at quite straight- forwardly. It is tricky, because I am aware that we do not want threatening people to work with, for example, children, but we should not be risk averse. I commend the noble Baroness on the wording, which is an appropriate balance between public protection and rehabilitation. There is no point putting people in prison and telling them that they will be different people and be given a second chance if they rehabilitate but then denying them that second chance when they leave prison. They might as well just carry on being criminals. I think this amendment is, as they say, a no-brainer, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 390A from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I just want to give a practical look at this. As many noble Lords know, I have been a youth and community worker for well over 35 years now, and one of my biggest projects was to run a job club. Many of the young men in particular in my job club were very disappointed when they could not get work. Invariably, they had had some brush with the law that meant prison time, had done the work on themselves to be productive members of society, and came out, but then the barring code, DBS and all kinds of things got in the way. What do you believe they returned to then? They returned to the only skill they had, which was criminal activity. Most of the most serious criminals I dealt with—the repeat criminals, the ones that you really needed to cross the road for—were so because, at that moment when we could have assessed them slightly differently, when their youthful transgressions could have been looked at in a different light, we did not, and they then became a really serious, long-term problem to us all.
When I spoke to a group of young men very recently, and I keep saying men because I have been doing work with gang-involved young men, one of them finished our conversation by saying to me, “You”—by that, he meant us—“are doing it to yourselves”. He said that if we continue to view him as a criminal, he will continue to behave as a criminal.
We are all certain of two things: we do not want people who have committed crimes of the worst kind to go unpunished and get away with them, and we want to protect public safety. But since these rules first came in, some time ago now, our protection awareness and the rules have greatly advanced. As a trustee of a charity that does youth work, my job was to look at people’s criminal records and help to assess whether we could help them to work safely with our young people. Usually, we could do that, and for those for whom we could not we had to ask them to leave.
The idea that the Government should have a review is long overdue. If you really want to rehabilitate people, you have to show them that there is some chance that they can re-enter society and make up for what they may have done incorrectly. We understand that it is a balance but, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, the wording of the amendment contains that balance. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for the meeting that she had with my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, had a different meeting. We entirely support the amendment and were very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, talked about the principles of agreeing with the review. We think that is very important.
We absolutely agree with the principle, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, that children should not be adversely affected by backlogs, which they have absolutely no control over at all. There is a broader principle: the age at which an offence or caution took place should absolutely be the age at which the offender is dealt with. With regard to the review, we believe that youth cautions and conditional cautions should not remain on the young person’s record once they have become an adult. We hope that that will be taken into account in the review as well.
I echo the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the very careful wording by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, in proposed new subsection (2)(c) about ensuring that
“the regime appropriately balances public protection with rehabilitation”.
That seems to be common sense. We endorse that and hope that the Government will use it as the basis for their review.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sater for tabling this amendment on a hugely important issue. I can be relatively brief because she gave ample reasons for the amendment. When criminal records are disclosed, they should be done so regularly and proportionately across all cases. She gave many compelling reasons for the amendment and, as she said, it is modest. It does not ask much of the Secretary of State. I agree absolutely with my noble friend that this system would simply benefit from an updated review. For all those reasons, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her amendment, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Perhaps I should explain why I am responding to it instead of my noble friend Lady Levitt, who has had considerable engagement with the noble Baroness and other Members of the House on this matter. The amendment relates to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, so I am responding to it. In principle, there are a number of areas where there is crossover between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. I noted the support from the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Brinton, for the general principles of the amendment.
The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to strike a balance between supporting ex-offenders to put their past behind them and ensuring that we keep people safe. The regime plays a crucial role in helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for roles in health, social care and education. It also aims to avoid the disclosure of old and trivial offending so that people can make fresh starts and get on with their lives. We all know that employment and a fresh start are critical to preventing reoffending. The significance of employment—along with housing, family support and optimism for the future —for reducing reoffending should never be underestimated.
We keep the regime regularly under review as a matter of course, so that it remains fit for purpose and responds to concerns as they arise. I recognise the value of stepping back and carrying out a more strategic assessment, which the amendment would do.
I know that noble Lords know this, but the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, gave a commitment on 2 December, in response to the Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I, that the Government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is clear and proportionate, particularly—given the discussions we have had and reflecting what my noble friend Lady Levitt had said—in relation to childhood offences. My department—the Home Office—and the Ministry of Justice are working together to look at the next steps.
We intend to publish a consultation that is, in a sense, the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, asks for, setting out proposals for specific reforms on disclosure of childhood criminal records. Currently, the plan is to have that consultation published by the end of the year. If we can do it earlier, we will. There is a lot of work to do but I want to get it done as quickly as possible and I know that my noble friend Lady Levitt will want to do the same. I can certainly give the assurance that we will have that consultation out by the end of the year, and that will, I think, provide the strategic review that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks.
I believe that it is right to prioritise consideration of how the regime affects those who offend as children. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Levitt and the work that has been done on engagement to date, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for the external pressure she has put on us on these matters but, in the light of those reassurances, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister and am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bailey all spoke very positively and passionately about the amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely positive response and look forward to hearing more about the consultation at the end of the year. Speed is of the essence and we would like to see it as soon as possible. We have heard, from me and others, about lots of anomalies in other situations involving criminal records that we think we should deal with, but I thank the Minister again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Misconduct investigations where officer acquitted(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.(2) In section 13B –(a) in subsection (1), at end insert “but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”, and(b) in subsection (2), at the beginning, leave out “The” and insert “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”.(3) After section 13B, insert—“13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct(1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter.(2) This section applies where—(a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3,(b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of substantial new evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be significantly likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(4) In this section—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the investigation related; (b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority, local policing body or relevant review body (as the case may be).”(4) After paragraph 24C of Schedule 3, insert—“Investigation where person acquitted in criminal proceedings
24D (1) This paragraph applies where—(a) an investigation of a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter (“the index investigation”) has concluded and the final report has been submitted to the relevant authority,(b) the relevant authority has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4F),(c) as a result of the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(d) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(2) In this paragraph—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the index investigation related;(b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority, local policing body or relevant review body (as the case may be).(3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant authority may not initiate a new investigation, re-open an investigation or order a re-investigation against the relevant person in relation to the same complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter that was the subject of the index investigation.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of substantial new evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the index investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be significantly likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.”(6) In paragraph 25 of that Schedule—(a) after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—“(4DA) The Director-General may not direct that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4C)(b) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to that investigation.”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (4E) insert—“(4EA) The local policing body may not make a recommendation to the appropriate authority that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4E)(a) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to the conduct to which the investigation related.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from investigating an officer where that officer has already been investigated and acquitted in court for the same conduct matter.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 391 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. In Committee, speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I raised the case of the police officer, Martyn Blake, whose case served as the perfect example of the difficulties of serving as a police firearms officer.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct, as is the norm, investigated Martyn Blake following a police firearms operation in London that resulted in the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba, and he was subsequently charged with murder. The case proceeded through the full criminal justice process and the evidence was examined in open court before jury under the rigorous standards of criminal law. After hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted him.
For most people, an acquittal, after an initial investigation and then a full criminal trial, would represent the end of the matter, but in this case, despite the acquittal, the IOPC indicated that the circumstances of the case would still be examined further in the context of police misconduct proceedings. The IOPC then reopened those proceedings, constituting its second investigation and the third investigation overall.
Whatever one’s view of the original incident, the situation raises the question of how many times an officer should be required to defend themselves for the same conduct. We have had restrictions and double jeopardy since the 12th century, but this appears to be triple jeopardy. Police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted and then reinvestigated. My amendment would amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that where a police officer has been investigated for a complaint or a conduct or DSI matter, prosecuted in a criminal court and acquitted, the same conduct cannot simply be reinvestigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct unless there is substantial new evidence. That last point is important.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the law of double jeopardy by permitting retrial where there was new and compelling evidence. I completely understand that if new evidence comes to light, the IOPC may need to reopen an investigation. There is a safeguard in the amendment to ensure the fairness of the police complaints system. I do not dispute the importance of police accountability; public confidence in policing depends on robust oversight, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a vital role in that framework, but accountability must also be balanced with basic principles of justice. When the criminal courts have examined a case and reached a verdict, there must be a strong presumption that the matter is settled.
I know only too well that police officers make difficult and sometimes life and death decisions in circumstances that are fast-moving, dangerous and highly uncertain. They do so in order to protect the public. When something goes wrong, it is entirely right that their actions are scrutinised carefully and independently, but it is equally important that the process is fair, proportionate and finite.
I hope that the Minister will realise the harrowing mental burdens placed on the police and accept the amendment. All I am asking is for him to meet me half way and bring something at Third Reading or perhaps commit to bringing forward a proposal along these lines in the upcoming Bill on police reform. If he does not accept my amendment today and cannot give me an assurance about police reform, I will seek to divide the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In family cases of sexual or physical abuse, someone can be tried and acquitted but then dealt with in the family court on very much the same evidence. That is partly because there is a difference in the standard of proof, which, in a criminal case, is much greater than in civil and family proceedings. Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, for two reasons. First, it imposes a regime which is wholly different from the regulatory practices in every other regulatory authority. For the last 15 years, I have practised exclusively as a legal adviser to regulatory panels, including for doctors, nurses, midwives, healthcare practitioners and social workers. In each and every case, a practitioner, a registrant, who has been acquitted by a criminal court can be brought before the regulatory panel to face misconduct proceedings. That is because the standard of proof is different: the criminal acquittal means that they failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the regulatory panel is entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct has been made out.
That takes me to the second point. Not only is it contrary to all the practices that we as a Parliament have imposed on other regulatory authorities, which I have identified, it is contrary to the merits. It may very well be that an officer who has properly been acquitted is none the less, on the balance of probabilities—the test within the regulatory authority—guilty of misconduct. I believe that that option should remain. I am very close to the position of the noble and learned Baroness, who draws from her experiences in the family courts. My experience is in regulatory proceedings, and what is proposed in this amendment is profoundly different from what we have imposed on the regulatory authorities.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, set out the case for very well. It is linked particularly to the Chris Kaba case.
I will try to address the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He made a fair point. There are times when, even if someone has been acquitted of a criminal offence—in this case, a charge of murder—disciplinary issues might be discovered which are not directly related to the death but a professional body may want to address, such as ammunition not being signed out properly or something else that was important but not relevant to a criminal charge. The concern in this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained, is that it appears from the press release, which is all we have to go on, that the IOPC basically laid its charge based on the criminal case—the charge of murder. That might seem very difficult to understand.
The amount of time this takes—I am sure that this can happen in medical cases—is substantial. In the Chris Kaba case, from event to criminal case took about three years. The officer will probably wait another two years. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, addressed the double jeopardy point—it is probably nearer to triple or more jeopardy. There are two or three bites of the cherry as far as the officer is concerned, although we must look at it beyond the officer’s understanding.
There is first an assessment of whether there is a criminal charge. Should that be negative, there is then a misconduct charge. Should both be negative, if there is a death involved, which we are particularly concerned about with respect to police firearms officers, a coroner’s court will be convened, after waiting for the two previous decisions. At the end there can be a verdict of unlawful killing, at which point the whole thing starts again. All this accounts for the very long processes. Why can these decisions not be considered in parallel rather than sequentially? I have still not really heard a proper explanation for that.
If the IOPC considered in the police case that there was gross misconduct or a conduct issue, why did it not lay a charge at the beginning? Why did it wait for the outcome of the criminal case, unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has suggested, more evidence had been discovered in the criminal case that might have made a difference? No one has said that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord was suggesting, I think, that it is wrong to hold a subsequent disciplinary proceeding on precisely the same facts that gave rise to the acquittal. But in the regulatory proceedings of which I have been speaking, that is precisely the case. Very often a practitioner or registrant who has been acquitted before a criminal court then comes before a regulatory panel facing misconduct proceedings on precisely the same facts. My point is that the amendment is seeking to put in place a regime wholly different from that which operates in every other profession, and deprives people of the option of finding an officer guilty of misconduct when, on the balance of probabilities, the officer is guilty of misconduct.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am not going to try to argue the case; I am making my argument, and the noble Viscount is making his. The other regulatory bodies do not have something called the IOPC, a body that is charged with investigating this type of thing. That is fine, but it imposes a further burden and further process. Two groups are badly affected: the family of the person who has died and the officer in the case. Of course, I make the case for the officer, but both matter in that both are badly damaged. For me, this is a subset of the later discussion we will have about police firearms officers, but it is just one indication of some of the aggravation of their position, when, in every case, when charged, they have been found not guilty. In the Kaba case, following a three-year process, it took three hours for a criminal court to find that there was no case to answer and the officer was found not guilty.
It is very hard to understand why the IOPC, after all that time, having not charged in the first place at the time of the event, suddenly instigated the case at a later stage. For all those reasons that I have tried to identify, police firearms officers, who take incredible risks on our behalf, are an important group that we have to consider and, unless we find some comfort for them in law, the danger is they will turn around and stop doing it on our behalf. I think this is a help. I accept the fundamental point from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it may be inconsistent, but I would argue that we are in a pretty inconsistent place now so far as the law and the process is set up.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can I add a further point to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with which I agree? The purpose of the criminal proceedings is distinct from the purpose of the disciplinary regulatory proceedings. The purpose of the criminal proceedings, of course, is to decide whether this individual should face a serious sanction of many years in prison for what is alleged. The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is entirely different. It is to protect the public and decide whether a person who serves as a police officer is an appropriate person in all the circumstances to continue to do so.
It is uncomfortable, but it may well be the case that the director-general, on reviewing all the evidence, takes the view that this particular officer should not continue to be in the police force, should not continue to hold the responsibilities that he or she does, and should not continue to have the powers that he or she does. If this amendment is passed, we will be putting the director-general in an impossible position. It will mean that he or she has to take no action to seek to impose disciplinary proceedings on an officer against whom there may be very considerable evidence that they are simply unsuitable to remain in the police service.
That is very similar, I would suggest, to the situation the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, drew attention to, because the purpose of the family law proceedings is entirely different to the purpose of the criminal proceedings. The purpose of the family law proceedings is to decide whether the child needs to be protected and therefore those proceedings can quite properly continue in relation to the same allegations that were rejected by the criminal court.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, can I add my two-penn’orth to this? I declare my interest as the co-chair of the national police ethics committee, but I am speaking more as a serving Bishop. I have to hear disciplinary complaints against clergy. Sometimes those clergy have committed something which is being investigated first by the police. To answer the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, often the police tell us, “We don’t want you interfering until we have finished”. If the result of the criminal proceeding is that the person is convicted, I can then do quite a summary process in terms of applying a penalty or perhaps depriving that member of the clergy from serving in their parish, perhaps banning them from ministry for a time or for life. But all of that is very much on that balance of probabilities, on the civil standard. It is very different from the criminal standard.
There are many cases where the police investigation may not lead to a trial or may lead to a trial and acquittal but there are still major issues around the suitability of that person to be a minister of religion, such as their safeguarding ability. I need to be able to reassure my people in my diocese by following a proper disciplinary process on exactly the same facts as the criminal case was dealing with, but to that very different standard of proof.
Again, as chair of police ethics, I think the ability of the police to be respected by the public, for me, demands that there are occasions when somebody who has been acquitted at the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt should still then face the disciplinary matter at that civil standard of the balance of probabilities, so I could not support this current amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 392 in my name is about fairness, discipline and humanity.
First, misconduct investigations that drift on for months and years are damaging to everyone involved—the officer, the family, the complainant and public confidence in the system. Secondly, where these cases run on endlessly, the consequences can be severe. Long investigations place huge strain on mental health and, in the worst cases, such prolonged uncertainty has been linked to suicide. That alone should make this House pause and ask whether the current system is working as it should. Thirdly, I want to stress that this amendment does not block proper investigation and does not touch criminal matters. It simply says that, after 12 months, there should be independent scrutiny by a legally qualified person so that cases can move on properly and an officer can either be brought back into service or removed from the service without delay. Finally, swift justice is a matter for all involved. It matters for the innocent officer who should not be left in limbo. It matters for the complainants who deserve prompt and credible outcomes. Justice delayed helps no one; this amendment would bring greater urgency, greater accountability and a greater sense of fairness to the police disciplinary system.
Morale in the police force, particularly in the Met, is very low and one of the things that officers continually point to is the length of investigations when an officer is accused of something. This is not to say whether the officer is innocent or not—that is a whole other affair—it is the length of the investigation. If you speak to any of your local bobbies, particularly if they are an officer, they are likely to tell you they are considering leaving. When you probe a bit deeper, this question of investigations always comes up. One of the major roles of this Government now has to be to improve police morale by doing the right thing and making the whole system fairer.
I come from the Black community, the community arguably most over and under policed simultaneously in this country. If we are to have a police force that can actually care for the people who have the most interaction with the police, we need to raise their morale. I commend this amendment to the House. It could be a very good step in the right direction to make these investigations fair and to raise police morale.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 393A in my name seeks to codify the Supreme Court decision in W(80) which relates to police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. The amendment relates to the test used to determine whether an officer misconducted themselves when he or she used force in self-defence. The amendment would place in statute the current legal position that an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others faced an immediate danger and, crucially, that where that belief is mistaken, the mistake must also be an objectively reasonable one.
I have retabled this amendment to encourage further consideration by the Government of their decision to depart from this test following Sir Adrian Fulford’s rapid review. Under their proposal, an officer would be able to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if the mistake was unreasonable. This is a significant shift, and one intended to be made by statutory instrument and without public consultation.
Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments made in Committee; however, I continue to believe firmly that the current civil law test is the right one in the context of misconduct proceedings. Of course, as many have rightly emphasised, it is essential that officers required to make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations are treated fairly, but fairness to officers must be balanced with the equally important obligations of learning, improvement and accountability of officers. The current test already achieves that balance. On the previous references to delays in the misconduct proceedings arena, I would say that these matters should be addressed by review, rather than removing the possibility of misconduct proceedings.
It is important to be clear that this amendment does not concern the criminal law. It does not touch on criminal prosecutions, as was suggested during Committee. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with respect, the reason that disciplinary proceedings await the outcome of criminal proceedings is that this is what the police ask. I chair the safeguarding service in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster and in many cases the police will say to us, “Please stop: do nothing”, and the policy is that we stop and do nothing until the police say we can do something. That is an important reservation.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
May I address that simple point? To be clear, in these cases, the IOPC is the investigating body. It is in full possession of the information it has gained—interviews, evidence from the scene, et cetera—so it is in a good position to query criminal charge or, at that stage, query misconduct charge, but it waits until the end of the whole process to instigate the misconduct charge that it could have instigated at the beginning, indicating the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it may be an employment issue. I find it confusing that it waits until the outcome of a criminal case, where it will have had no reasoned explanation for the jury’s decision—it would in a civil case, but not in a jury case, because no reason is offered. That is my point. It can be different in other professions, I understand, because they did not have the benefit of the investigators deciding what to put forward to the CPS.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
As police ombudsman, I was faced with exactly this problem, and I knew that our criminal proceedings had to be dealt with first.
To continue, what we are talking about here is the standard to be applied in misconduct proceedings. These proceedings exist in large part not just to ensure accountability but to enable forces to reflect and learn. They also enable the police to demonstrate that they take seriously situations involving the use of force, even when that force has been held not to be criminal. Despite that, the use of force must be necessary and proportionate.
This has broader implications. A disciplinary system that cannot scrutinise unreasonable mistakes risks undermining public confidence in policing. Retaining the civil law test supports public confidence by ensuring that unreasonable errors of judgment are open to scrutiny. Removing that scrutiny would weaken the learning function of misconduct proceedings, pose risks to public safety and give the impression that unreasonable policing errors lie beyond the review of accountability. That would have an impact, inevitably, by diminishing trust in policing.
For these reasons, I would be very grateful if the Minister could indicate what steps the Government are willing to take to address the serious concerns raised about moving to the criminal standard for self-defence in misconduct proceedings, particularly in the absence of wider public consultation or engagement with the communities most affected by police use of force. I am grateful to Justice, Inquest, the National Black Police Association and StopWatch for their help and support in this amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, these amendments all address the same question: how we protect the public from unlawful force while treating officers fairly when they carry out dangerous duties on our behalf. From these Benches, we start from two simple principles: there must be clear, consistent standards of accountability; and we must not drift into a two-tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else.
On Amendment 391, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we have particular concerns. It would, in effect, close off the possibility of independent scrutiny by the IOPC once a criminal court had acquitted an officer. That might sound attractive in the interests of family, but it risks confusing two distinct questions: whether conduct meets the high criminal threshold for conviction and whether it meets the professional standards we rightly expect from those who wield state power.
We are more sympathetic to Amendment 392 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. Misconduct cases that drift for years are bad for families seeking answers, for complainants whose evidence fades, for taxpayers funding prolonged suspensions and, not least, for officers left in limbo. The broad thrust of the amendment—that investigations need clear expectations and real grip—is one we support, while recognising that complex cases sometimes need longer and that rigid timelines can carry risks.
Amendment 393A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, seeks to put beyond doubt the test that should apply in police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. We support the aim of aligning those proceedings with the approach of the Supreme Court in W80 as a modest but important safeguard for bereaved families and communities who need to see that internal standards reflect the law as articulated by the highest court. If the Government are now moving in that direction through secondary legislation, so much the better, but Parliament is entitled to a clear, on-the-record explanation of the test, not simply an assurance that it will be sorted out behind the scenes.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, sits down, I wish to say that this is not a rigid timeline for anything other than a review to look at the timeline. I accept that a complicated case may need to run, but even in a complicated case, somebody should say, “Okay, this is complicated—we need more time”. In many instances, 12 months would be the point where somebody said, “We need to wrap up and move on”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for initiating his Amendment 391. I know that it is motivated by the desire to support police officers in the difficult role they perform. He and I share that motivation. I say to him, however, that the amendment as drafted would have the effect of curtailing existing powers that the Independent Office for Police Conduct can use to reinvestigate or reopen a case that it has previously closed. The amendment also seeks, more generally, to prevent the reopening of investigations into complaints against the police from the public, again if such complaints have resulted in criminal proceedings which have not resulted in a conviction.
I take very straightforwardly the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who made the point that I was going to make: we know of no recent cases where the Independent Office for Police Conduct has reopened a closed case. However, it is in the public interest that cases of alleged police misconduct can, if need be, be reopened in the light of substantive new evidence or evidence that the original investigation was flawed. As has been said by the three noble Members who have spoken, not all criminal proceedings against serving police officers involve line-of-duty incidents. Some may involve serious corruption or sexual violence by police perpetrators, and there may be compelling public interest arguments for reopening such cases.
The powers of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to reinvestigate a case are already limited by existing law, which requires the IOPC to have compelling reasons to reopen a case. This is a legal threshold and is already a high bar. Disciplinary proceedings involve different evidential tests, as was mentioned by those who contributed, and the lower threshold for finding misconduct or gross misconduct is the balance of probabilities. They also serve a different purpose from a criminal trial. We rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers, so a blanket presumption that no police officer who has been acquitted in the criminal courts should face disciplinary proceedings would, in the Government’s view, be quite wrong—I think that reflects the points of view put by the noble Viscount, the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness. That is a compelling argument which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will reflect on if he seeks to push the amendment, which I hope, in due course, he will not.
Amendment 392, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to improve the timeliness of police complaints and misconduct investigations by creating a new system of legal adjudicators with the power to overrule both chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct by closing down investigations where they determine that there is no good or sufficient reason for any delay. As we have previously debated, unnecessary delays in these investigations are not in anyone’s best interests. I know the impact they will have on public confidence and on the welfare of the police officers involved. However, while it is right to strive for improvements in timeliness, this amendment risks adding another layer of bureaucracy, thereby adding cost and delay and not removing it.
The Government are committed to supporting chief constables to remove those who are not fit for purpose, but the amendment has the potential not only to overrule the responsibilities of chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but to create some perverse outcomes. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper already confirms our commitment to an independent, end-to-end review of the police conduct system, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would support. It will include looking at timeliness and how this can be improved. Again, further process will be brought back following the police White Paper proposals.
Amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would require that, where a police officer uses force based on an honestly held but mistaken belief, that belief can justify the use of force only if the mistake was objectively reasonable. In effect, as she knows, it seeks to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of police officer W80, which found that the civil standard applied to this test. As the House will know, police officers carry out important and demanding roles. The Government are determined to ensure that both the public and the police are able to feel confident in the police accountability system. That is why we commissioned a review—again, the noble Baroness referred to this—from Timothy Godwin, a former senior police officer, and Sir Adrian Fulford. They carried out a rapid, independent review into police accountability.
The findings of that review were published in October 2025—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to this—and it recommended that the Government change the legal test for the use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test. The Government, again, have accepted this recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes via secondary legislation. Our intention is that these changes will come into force later this year, in the spring of 2026.
While I understand the noble Baroness’s concept, I cannot support it, because we have put in place the independent commissioners to examine the matter thoroughly and they heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their recommendation was clear: the current approach has created confusion, inconsistency and, I accept, a very bad effect on police morale, particularly among firearms officers. I hope the changes we are making will bring clarity to the system. I reassure the House that it will still be the case that any force used must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, after her comments—it may not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Finally in this group, I will speak briefly to government Amendments 395 and 397. These are technical amendments to ensure that specialist police force barred and advisory lists are consistently applied across police forces. The provisions in Clauses 173 to 181 and Schedule 21 are part of a broader effort to raise standards and conduct within law enforcement. They also include the closure of a legislative loophole. These technical amendments have been tabled to ensure that we have alignment in the treatment of civilian employees within the police service.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I hope not just that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but that on reflection he is able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and therefore not push his amendment to a vote. But, as ever, that is entirely a matter for him.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his valid points and for injecting his valuable experience into this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that it is wrong to draw a comparison between policing and the medical profession. Policing is uniquely different.
This has been a thoughtful discussion about how we maintain robust police accountability while ensuring fairness to the officers who serve the public. The case of Martyn Blake has brought this issue into the public consciousness. Whatever view one takes of the circumstances of that tragic incident, the fact remains that the case was heard in open court before a jury and the officer was acquitted, yet the prospect of further investigation has remained. For many officers watching that case unfold, the concern is not about accountability; it is about whether there is ever a point at which a matter can truly be regarded as concluded.
As my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington pointed out, there is much current discussion about police morale and those young-in-service officers leaving the police service. The proposal in my amendment is fair to officers. It is clear for the system and maintains the integrity of the oversight framework. It is highly unfortunate and extremely disappointing that the Minister has not been able to at least meet me half way and make the commitment that I sought. On that basis, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/2) are amended as follows.(2) After Regulation 13 (timeliness of investigations), insert—“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.”(3) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/4) are amended as follows.(4) After Regulation 19 (timeliness of investigation), insert—“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation. (3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 12-month limit, unless extraordinary circumstances reviewed by a legally qualified person dictate otherwise, which would encourage forces and external bodies to complete misconduct and gross misconduct processes quicker, allowing officers to resume duties and limiting the negative impact on their health and wellbeing.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Before we voted, he said to me that he hoped I was satisfied. I will say that I am partially satisfied with his answer, and that is good enough; I will not test the opinion of the House. I would like to say, however, that he talked about the work that the Government are doing to look at how we can shorten these investigations; he mentioned that the Government were going to give this more consideration. I implore him to look at how we shorten these investigations. They are unnecessarily wrong and they are causing huge damage on both sides of the equation. I would like to support the Government in that work, and if I can be of any help, I hope they will let me know. However, I will not test the will of the House.
Middle East: Defence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the briefing on the current conflict that he made available to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank all our Armed Forces personnel who are currently deployed and protecting this country and all our interests in the region, whether British citizens, bases or military assets. We admire their courage, professionalism and unstinting commitment to serve in an environment that is unpredictable and frightening. We are in their debt, and we never take their contribution for granted. We are particularly mindful of that as we remember the United States service personnel who have lost their lives in the conflict. Sadly, conflict delivers inevitable death and injury, so we think of all those impacted by recent events.
I am not going to engage in hindsight. I want to focus on three things: what the Government knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. Unlike His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government have access to high-quality defence, security and military intelligence, so answering these three questions is important. Candour in answering them may help to inform what to do the next time a threat manifests itself.
To focus the Minister’s mind, I will share what I knew, when I knew it and what I would have done with that limited knowledge. First, we have always known the toxic threat presented by Iran. It is a malign and evil regime, with a hatred of western culture, that is intent on developing nuclear weapons. By the beginning of this year, it was clear that President Trump was heading for decisive action.
Secondly, by February, President Trump had adopted a bellicose approach, making it more, rather than less, likely that the US would trigger a conflict. On 11 February, 16 days before the first American missiles hit Iran, the United States formally requested the use of British bases to facilitate that attack. His Majesty’s Government therefore knew, two weeks in advance, that there was an overwhelming likelihood of an Iranian response that would threaten our citizens, Armed Forces personnel, military bases and sovereign territory.
Thirdly, given that knowledge, I would have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to move heaven and earth to muster whatever assets he could lay his hands on and get them out to the region. Unfortunately, it appears that that was not the Government’s response. We had no warship in the Gulf, we know that no Type 45 destroyer was deployed in those intervening two weeks, HMS “Anson” remained in Australia, and no Type 23 was sent to the region either. Removing our one warship from the region, with no replacement at such a critical time, is extraordinary. A Type 45 destroyer dispatched to the region would have provided invaluable protection against air attack on our Cyprus base.
The public assessment of how the Government responded is unflattering. I shall leave the Minister to counter that negative view but, to do so, he needs to provide specific answers to the three points that I have raised.
The crux of the matter appears to be this: we have been attacked, our bases and sovereign territory are under threat, and UK citizens in the region have faced attack. Whether we were involved in the initial strikes is immaterial; Iran does not discriminate. The United Kingdom is in this war now, whether we like it or not. Given that simple fact, distinctions between offence and defence are semantics; they are simply not relevant. If someone fires a missile at you, you have to do everything within your power to stop it and then stop them firing another.
I shall await the Minister’s response, but if part of the Government’s dilemma was uncertainty about what assets could be mustered then that is extremely serious and, in such dangerous times, unacceptable. I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government immediately audit the availability of naval assets and urgently improve sea readiness? As this conflict underlines the imperative of the defence industry plan being finalised, can it be published immediately? Adhering to the agreed build timescales for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates is now critical. These ships are needed by the UK, so will the Minister confirm that no export order will be permitted to dislocate that delivery schedule? What lessons does the Minister consider that we need to learn from the UK’s pace of response to this conflict? Finally, disquiet has been expressed publicly that the new contract that the Government entered into with Serco ended round-the-clock staffing at the naval base. Can the Minister confirm whether that was one of the reasons for the extraordinary delay in getting HMS “Dragon” ready to leave port?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as is so frequently the case on defence matters, I stand as the second opposition spokesperson to raise questions for the Minister, but I find myself very much in agreement with the Opposition Front Bench. Having heard statements from the other place, I had thought that today might be somewhat different and that there might be some differences of opinion between us, but the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised many questions that need to be answered. This is not a question of the rights or wrongs of action. We are in a situation that we may not have chosen to be in, but we are there now and we need to work out what His Majesty’s Government are able and planning to do—without giving away any operational secrets, obviously. We need at least to be thinking about the assets that we have available and a little bit more about how we interact with our allies.
I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, with one exception: I put on the record the thanks of the Liberal Democrats to His Majesty’s Armed Forces for, as always, stepping up and going beyond the call of duty. That is essential and their role is so crucial.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the UK’s response to defend our assets, including the sovereign base in Cyprus, seemed glacially slow. If the Government’s view is that all action should be defensive then we on these Benches would support that and we would have been less sure about engaging in offensive action in the initial mission, but we are now in a situation where there will likely be more attacks against the United Kingdom because of the current situation in the Middle East. We therefore need to understand the extent to which His Majesty’s Government and the MoD are able to up our presence in the region. Are HMS “Dragon” and Royal Fleet Auxiliary “Lyme Bay” the only naval vessels that we are able to send? Are we planning other movements? Are we doing everything possible?
There is a question that remains somewhat elusive. The Statement given in the other place talked about defensive action and ensuring legality—that the United Kingdom would act only where there is a clear legal base. However, as my honourable friend in the other place, Richard Foord, asked, how do His Majesty’s Government distinguish between offensive and defensive action in the current circumstances? If we have military embedded with the United States, does that not raise questions about how we deliver what we say we are doing?
Finally, although the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence industrial strategy, she did not make the following plea, which somebody needs to make: when are we going to increase defence expenditure? Talking about the end of this Parliament or the next one is not good enough. This is a regional war that is becoming a global war, and we cannot wait five years. Iran certainly will not.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their important tributes to our Armed Forces. There is no division between any of us in our admiration for our Armed Forces, their families, the communities, and all those who work in our defence industry. I join with both noble Baronesses on that. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, did—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares this sentiment— I offer our condolences to the American armed forces personnel who have lost their lives and to the others who have been wounded. I am sure that we all share that sentiment.
I thought the noble Baroness might ask a question about readiness, so I was interested to read the Defence Select Committee’s statement from the other place. Governments cannot always be guaranteed that Select Committees will put forward things that are helpful or indeed true—not that they are not true, but you know what I mean—so let me quote from the Defence Select Committee’s statement of 10 March 2026 on developments in the Middle East:
“Members of the cross-party Defence Committee met this morning with senior civilian and military officials from the Ministry of Defence, for a secret briefing on operations in Iran and the wider region. Although we cannot comment on the substance of that discussion, those Members present were left satisfied that the UK’s decision making and preparedness measures in place ahead of the recent military activity were grounded in a coherent logic”.
I just share that the Select Committee has come to that conclusion.
The noble Baroness quite rightly asked, and I do not dispute the challenge, what our preparedness has been. Since January, we have pre-positioned Typhoon jets and F35s, and counter-drone teams, radar and various other air defence measures were put in place because of the situation that we were concerned about. As the situation has developed, four more Typhoons have been sent, along with more F35s, refuelling Voyager aircraft, A400M, 400 more personnel to Akrotiri in Cyprus, three Wildcat helicopters, one Merlin helicopter, more radar and more air defence, and, as we know, HMS “Dragon” is on the way. The UK Government took that as a sovereign decision. There was no immediate request from the Middle East but we sent that as soon as we were able.
The noble Baroness made a very important point about the Serco contract. It is not true that people were restricted to working from only nine to five at Portsmouth to get the Type 45 destroyer ready. They worked virtually round the clock and they deserve a lot of praise. In the face of a national emergency, the workers and personnel there put in ammunition, refuelled and did all the various things that they needed to do. The crew were recalled and, in six days rather than a few weeks, that ship was ready. As Members of your Lordships’ House know, it is on its way.
The noble Baroness asked about planning. She will know from her own experience that planning obviously takes place. There are lots of considerations about what capabilities are available and may be made available to defend our interests. She asked specifically about offensive and defensive actions. We have been very clear that the legal basis for our action is the collective self-defence of the region and the defence of our Armed Forces personnel and people who are out there. She and others may be interested in the numbers. The latest figure I have is that 55,000 people have been brought back from the region, of some 173,000 people who have registered. Action is being taken on that.
As the noble Baroness knows, we have allowed the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia to take action which promotes the self-defence of our partners and ourselves. Specifically, those allowances and permissions relate to stockpiles and launch sites. As both noble Baronesses will know, if we can degrade the ability to launch missiles and degrade the stockpiles in the first place, that contributes to the self-defence of the region.
The noble Baroness asked about working with our allies. Only today, I met the Middle East ambassadors. I met last week with all of them, to tell them what we were doing and ask what more they would like us to do to support them—we want to work with them, and not do something to them. We have to have alliances and friendships with these people. They talk to us and they see the various actions that have been taking place. As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will know, you cannot have F35s, Typhoons and Voyagers and other air defence flying around without the co-operation of the various states to allow you the space to do it. Sometimes, that requires careful negotiation and consideration, so we work very closely with them to do that. I reassure both noble Baronesses that we continue to do so. At the end of our meeting, I suggested regular meetings. We met last week, we met today and we will have a regular meeting with them to ensure that we continue to work in the way that they would want.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence investment plan, though I will come to the industrial strategy as well. I can say no more than I have said in the past. We will publish that when it is ready to be published. On the industrial strategy and the particular point she made about the Type 26 and Type 31 being built in Scotland, she will welcome the 13 ships that are being built. To be fair, some of that was started under the previous Government, and she will have signed off some of it. All I am saying is that we have carried on with that shipbuilding programme and there will be 13 ships. It is our intention to deliver those 13 ships as quickly as we can, because they will provide us with some of the capability that we need.
The issue is how we deal with the current situation. That is why the noble Baroness was right to ask about the planning and consideration that is going on as to how we meet our responsibilities at the present time while we wait for some of the other capabilities that we want to be built and delivered.
The noble Baroness asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, RFA “Lyme Bay”. That is being readied for deployment, should that be decided. We are not in the situation that the noble Baroness suggests of, “Oh, my goodness, we should have an auxiliary ship available”, to take people away, for evacuation or for the delivery of supplies. RFA “Lyme Bay” is in Gibraltar and is being readied to be deployed should it be needed. That will be a further asset for us to use. There is a considerable number of things going on. There are always challenges and difficulties in these situations, and deployments are sometimes not easy. We are working as fast as we can to deliver the things that we are being asked for.
I have mentioned the Middle East and Akrotiri. We have had many discussions about why we do not deploy an aircraft carrier. We have an aircraft carrier, Akrotiri, which is our sovereign base that operates there. We have deployed numerous additional air defences and jets for the defence of our allies in the region and our personnel in the region. Noble Lords will have seen a few days ago the Defence Secretary going to Cyprus to thank and reassure personnel, and to work with and reassure the Government in Cyprus.
A whole range of different actions is taking place. At the end of the day, we will do all we can to reassure our allies, work with them and defend the region, to ensure that we have regional stability and, alongside that, that we protect British citizens, our Armed Forces and our interests there. We are working as hard as we possibly can to do that. I am very proud of much of what is being done, notwithstanding some of the challenges that we face and will no doubt face in the future.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom was not expected to take part in the initial strikes on Iran, as far as I am aware, so why did the Government not authorise the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in mid-February, as my noble friend pointed out, when our ally the USA requested the use of those bases? It meant that the US Air Force was spending 37 hours in the air without a base in Europe.
Further to the attack on RAF Akrotiri, which, as the Minister quite rightly mentioned, is a sovereign British base, by Hezbollah—obviously, the proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran—when will the Government expel Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom, as they did following the Novichok attack by Russia, when we expelled 16 diplomats?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Foreign Office will no doubt have heard the noble Baroness’s request about Iranian diplomats. She will also know that the Foreign Office called in the Iranian ambassador to express our displeasure with what was going on.
There is a point of difference between the noble Baroness and me. I thought the Prime Minister was right not to join in the initial offensive by America and Israel on the Saturday. We did not think it was correct and that is why we would not allow the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia. She is quite right to point out the problems that that caused flights from the United States, but when the US came with the new request, we agreed.
What made the difference among the Middle East nations was that they could not believe the indiscriminate way in which Iran retaliated. It did not retaliate only against American military bases and Israel; it launched missile attack after missile attack against numerous Middle Eastern countries which were in disbelief that that had happened. They then started to say, “What are we going to do to protect ourselves?” Along with the Middle Eastern countries and their populations, it endangered our Armed Forces and our citizens—people from the UK there for business and tourism.
That is why, in defence of our friends and allies in the region, and in self-defence, we thought the situation was different and it gave us a legal basis on which we could support the action and allow the use of our bases. That was the Government’s decision. Others may disagree with it, but I suspect the vast majority of people in our country think it is right to act in a way that promotes self-defence rather than the offensive action which took place on the Saturday.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the troops who are involved in this action, and I commend the Government for what they have done up until now, because criticism has been levelled at them—a lot of it unjustified. But is this crisis not a wake-up call for all of us in this House in that it underlines what the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference a few days ago? He said:
“Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them. This time, it must be different. Because all of the warning signs are there”.
All the political parties in this country need to galvanise themselves in light of what we are seeing at present and do something about it for the future.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I join my noble friend Lord Robertson in the tribute to our Armed Forces and I thank him for the points he made about the way in which the Government have acted and the various policy decisions that they have made. I know it has a been long-standing demand from my noble friend, who led the government review—the SDR—which laid out some of the challenges we face and the investments that the Government will need to consider. I am sure the Prime Minister will read his letter with interest. He made those comments at Munich, and we look forward to seeing how the Government will turn the 3% ambition into action in the next Parliament, should economic conditions allow, and similarly the commitment to 5% by 2035. Perhaps my noble friend will share the response from the Prime Minister when he receives it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in reflecting on what the Minister and the Statement said, that Iran has lashed out with
“dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless strikes”,
which is clearly an accurate description, I join the Front Benches and others in offering thanks to the British service personnel who are seeking to protect threatened communities, ships and other sites.
At the same time, we are seeing extensive and extremely heavy strikes by America on Iran, particularly in built-up areas. The Mines Advisory Group says that when explosive weapons are used in populated areas, 90% of the casualties are civilians. That results not only in physical trauma but a great deal of mental trauma. Today, a report has come out about the Minab elementary school where 175 mostly small children were killed by a Tomahawk strike which it now appears came from the US. Are the Government speaking to the US about minimising civilian damage and following international law, particularly in view of the fact that many of the civilians under these strikes will be those who have been seeking to overturn the Iranian regime?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a very important question. Of course we speak to the United States. The permissions we have given are very clear. Nobody wants to see civilian casualties, and we talk to the Americans about the need for careful targeting and to ensure that any potential impact on civilians is minimised. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I am sure we all share.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, as other Members of the House have done, I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As the father of a soldier, I am acutely aware of what the families at Akrotiri in Cyprus are going through at the moment. I am sure they are being well supported by chaplains in the Armed Forces, just as many of the communities in the Gulf will be being supported by Anglican and other denomination chaplains serving in the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. I am grateful to the Minister for the briefing that was given yesterday at the Ministry of Defence. I found it immensely helpful and it gave me assurance about the preparedness that had gone on over the last few weeks.
However, when we focus on one conflict, we tend to take our eye off the ball of other conflicts, and I am very worried about what is now happening in Ukraine—I am sure we are still as committed to supporting the people of Ukraine—but also elsewhere. I hear increasing reports of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Six Palestinians were killed by settler militia armed by the IDF in the first week of the war with Iran. In Qaryut, two brothers were killed a week last Monday and three others were injured simply because they were trying to protect their olive groves. Settlers are taking advantage and acting with impunity under the cover of this war. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in other places where we have a strategic interest, or a deep concern for the people, we are not taking our eye off the ball, particularly in the West Bank, where this further violence is reducing yet more the possibility of a two-state solution?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for the point about the briefing. We try to have as many briefings as we can so that people can keep up to date with the MoD’s thinking, and then they can make up their own minds. I join in him recognising the support that chaplains and other faith leaders give people in conflict, as well as the Armed Forces. That is a very important point to make.
Of course, our focus also remains on Ukraine. The MoD will be visiting the High North in the not-too-distant future. All of that is going on. He also made the point that, of course our focus at the moment with respect to the Middle East is on Iran, but that does not alter the fact that there are continuing issues with respect to Gaza and the West Bank. Tomorrow, I am seeing the Lebanese ambassador to talk to her about some of the issues occurring with Israel, the south of Lebanon and Hezbollah. So, it is quite right to say that, and we will continue to work with others to ensure that these other conflicts and problems, while they may not be in the headlines, are not forgotten and also need to be resolved as quickly as possible.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, the legal basis for this intervention is the collective self-defence of our allies in the Gulf. The Government’s position is that under collective self-defence, we may only target missiles and drones launched by Iran and the missile facilities. However, the law of armed conflict, once an armed conflict has begun, allows the targeting of all military objectives, which includes, at a minimum, all military personnel and all weapons. The UAE has now endured 250 ballistic missiles and 1,500 drone attacks. Are the Government really suggesting that a state under such an attack should respond by targeting only the specific weapons used against it, but not any other lawful military objectives, including any weapons such as, for example, an Iranian fighter jet? The Government have chosen to set out their targeting policy in this conflict in very legal terms. Are the Government not now concerned that, unless that statement from last week is updated and clarified, we risk conveying the impression to allies and enemies that our legal approach to targeting is now uniquely benevolent?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
All I can say to the noble Lord is that the UAE was at the briefing discussion we had in the MoD earlier, and we are working with the UAE as well as other allies to defend the UAE from attack. We have seen that happen, and it has been very satisfied with the way in which we have defended it against missile attack, as have other Middle East states. Some in this Chamber will know the difficulty, sometimes, of ensuring you can get the permissions you need in order to be able to do that. But we are working really hard, and the co-operation of all of those Middle East allies ensures we can protect as many of them as we can, including the UAE.
I know not everybody here agrees, but the legal basis on which we operate, to make a differentiation between taking offensive action and taking action in our self-defence and the defence of those in the region, is something that the Middle East countries themselves support, because they are worried about what is happening extending and developing in a way that becomes uncontrollable. All I am saying is that we are taking prudent, sensible and proportionate action to deliver the self-defence we all want.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. The whole House is very lucky to have him as our Minister. If it took only six days for HMS Dragon to get ready, why was readiness not instructed on or after 11 February?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We had no request from the region for a Type 45 destroyer. We made our own sovereign decision, on the basis of the intelligence and of the threat we perceived, to get a Type 45 there as soon as we could. People worked around the clock in order to deliver it there. Other assets were sent both before and during and will continue to be sent to deliver the defensive effect we want. That will be enhanced by the Type 45. Our assessment is that that needed to go, and we made the decision last week to send it and make it ready as soon as possible.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the gratitude and thanks to the armed services that has been expressed by all Members of this House. I ask my noble friend the Minister directly, does he agree with me that the British people understand that the responsibility of the British Government and the Prime Minister is primarily to protect British interests? Does he also appreciate that British people are worried at the moment about the military and economic consequences? Therefore, do the Minister and the Government have a clear plan to communicate with the British people and reassure them that the Government have a steady plan to protect British interests and the military and economic interests of the British people going forward?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is the whole basis of how the British Government are operating and of the decisions we are taking. The noble Baroness is quite right that the decisions we take are in the interests of the British people, both here and abroad, and obviously of our Armed Forces. We have a clear plan to do that. That is why we will operate only in a self-defensive way, because we do not want to escalate the situation. We are calling for de-escalation, which is the way to do it. We are also considering some of the economic impacts and how we might mitigate them.
A point I often make is that when you take action, it has consequences. When you do not take action, that also has consequences. So, sometimes a decision you make is based on your best assessment of how to deal with a particular situation. Our assessment, while not agreed by everyone, of the offensive action on the Saturday, was that it was not the right time to participate with the Americans and the Israelis. But, when the indiscriminate retaliation happened from Iran, with the attacks on numerous states across the region and their requests to us, the further request from the US was a reasonable one for us to allow it to use the bases to provide the self-defence that is so necessary.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I thank the Minister for his support for our Armed Forces. Has this action, which relies to some extent on aircraft operating out of Diego Garcia, persuaded the Government that it would be a very bad idea to give the freehold of this base to a friend of China and to take the risks with a non-nuclear power? Is that why they have paused that rather bad idea, or is it that the United States has warned them that it will not consent to vary the treaty which set up the base in the first place?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a couple of points. First, as a counterpoint to the point about China, if we are talking about Mauritius, the biggest friend it has got is India rather than China, and the Indians are just as worried about the influence of China in much of that region. The discussions continue around the Diego Garcia treaty, and we will see where that takes us, but the important thing is that Diego Garcia is and will be an important strategic asset for us. The debate the noble Lord and I would have is how we ensure the security of that base for us to continue operating in the way that we have done.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset that I hold the Minister in great regard and see him and his Secretary of State colleague, the right honourable John Healey, in the same tradition as great Labour patriots such as James Callaghan, for instance. But I take him back to the very interesting question put by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. Is it not time at this juncture to step back and look at the cumulative damage to the reputation of the United Kingdom as a reliable and trustworthy ally to our most powerful friend, the United States, when even Tony Blair has criticised the Government’s conduct over this conflict?
This narrow interpretation of international law, as between defensive and offensive capabilities, has been applied erroneously, in my opinion. If it was 1939, with those same parameters, we would not have come to the aid of Poland, because the UK population was not under a direct threat. The point is surely that the Iranian Islamic Republic has been an ongoing threat to British, US, Israeli and other citizens for 47 years. On that basis, we should have been a more loyal and trustworthy supporter of the United States, because, at the end of the day, the United States and the Israelis are on the front line of a civilisational fight, which we will all be involved with very soon if we are not careful.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the comparison with James Callaghan; I appreciate that. The serious point is that we are all patriots in here. I would not question anybody’s patriotism in this Chamber. We all want the best for our country. We all support our Armed Forces and wish to ensure that the UK remains as powerful and significant on the world stage as it always has been. There will be points of difference within that. The UK is still hugely regarded across the world. It is still of huge significance to the large number of countries that want the UK to stand with them—and not always with regiments of troops or, say, 50 aircraft or 40 tanks. The fact that the UK will often stand with countries across the world gives those countries a sense of legitimacy, confidence and purpose about what they are doing. We should remind ourselves of that sometimes and be proud of that—I am, and I know the noble Lord is.
From the Government’s perspective, there is no doubt that it is imperative for our security and that of the United States, and the security of the values that we stand for, that we retain and maintain the closeness of our relationship. That is the Government’s policy. Does that mean that sometimes there are difficulties? Of course there are. The noble Lord and I could recount historical examples of where there have been very serious problems between the United States and the United Kingdom, but that has not altered the fact that, fundamentally, our two countries are united in standing for freedom, democracy and human rights. Considerable co-operation still goes on between the US and the UK, including on intelligence sharing and in the military-to-military discussions that happen all the time, notwithstanding some of the things that we read. The worst thing we can do—I refuse to do this—is to say, “The President said this and the President said that”. He is the President of the United States; we will do all we can to work with him to deliver common objectives. At the end of the day, the only people who gain from any division between the United States and the United Kingdom—notwithstanding the fact that, sometimes, there will be policy differences, as there were a week or two ago—are our adversaries, and we should not allow them to experience that at all.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:30 - Division on Amendment 394 - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 394 disagreed.
Baroness Doocey
“Suspension of chief constables(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 38 (appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before suspending a chief constable under this section, the police and crime commissioner (or their successor) must—(a) be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the chief constable’s continued exercise of their functions would present a serious risk to the efficiency or effectiveness of the police force, or seriously undermine public confidence in the policing of the area, and(b) consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (or any relevant successor inspectorate) and have regard to its views.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a police and crime commissioner (or their successor) before suspending a chief constable under section 38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services and to be satisfied that suspension is necessary to avoid a serious risk to the efficiency or effectiveness of the force or to public confidence.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 393 seeks to protect the operational independence of chief constables by introducing vital safeguards at the point of suspension—the moment when they are most vulnerable to political pressure in practice.
In Committee, I tabled an amendment addressing a later stage of the formal dismissal process. However, after listening to police representatives, it has become clear that the real problem arises much earlier. The unilateral power of suspension currently exercised by police and crime commissioners, without any duty to seek independent input, is a significant driver of the leadership instability we see today, with nearly one in five forces losing their chief constable every year.
Under the current framework, the independent inspectorate must be consulted before a chief is formally removed, yet suspension often pre-empts this and can be triggered on relatively vague grounds, including simply that a chief constable’s continued presence may be detrimental to the efficiency or effectiveness of the force. In practice, this suspension loophole means the mere threat of suspension is often enough to force a chief to resign just to avoid a very public confrontation.
This leadership churn has real-world consequences. In Devon and Cornwall, the disruption of having three chief constables in 18 months led to service shortfalls and diminished morale. The Government’s own recent White Paper admits that the PCC model has often “not facilitated effective management” and acknowledges
“tensions in the one-to-one relationship”,
which ultimately harm communities.
My amendment proposes two modest but critical adjustments. First, it would require the PCC to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that continued service poses a serious risk to efficiency or to public confidence, replacing the current vague thresholds. Secondly, it would extend the duty to consult HMICFRS at this earlier stage, creating consistency between the decision to suspend and the decision to remove.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. It is a measured proposal that would simply require a police and crime commissioner, before suspending a chief constable, to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so and to consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.
Chief constables occupy one of the most demanding leadership roles in public life. They are responsible for operational policing, for thousands of officers and staff, and for maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. Therefore, decisions to suspend them are of the utmost seriousness, not only for the individual concerned but for the stability and effectiveness of the force they lead.
Recent events remind us why clarity in these processes matters. The policing of the Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture generated significant public and political debate about policing decisions and leadership accountability. In that context, the actions and judgments of the then chief constable of West Midlands Police, Craig Guildford, have been the subject of rightful scrutiny and commentary. There is potential concern about the necessity for the amendment, but I look forward to what the Minister has to offer on it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. I say at the outset that she has a point: the process by which police and crime commissioners may suspend a chief constable should be looked at.
The noble Baroness has suggested that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services should be involved in this process. As I discussed in Committee, the inspectorate already has such a role for the enforcement of resignations or retirements of chief constables under the Police Regulations 2003. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the Government agree with the suggestion she has made; I do not wish to surprise the noble Baroness.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope she can recover from that shock. I ask her to look at paragraph 134 of the White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing, which we published on 26 January. It says:
“We will reform the process for the appointment, suspension and dismissal of Chief Constables to introduce greater fairness, transparency and balance into the process. This will include introducing a requirement for Mayors and Policing and Crime Boards to seek views from His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary before taking any action to suspend the Chief Constable”.
I confirm that we intend to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We want to do that as part of the wider police reform package, so that it is not a piecemeal approach. There will be a wider police reform follow-through on the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. It is a very ambitious programme. I want to make sure that we do not just deal with it in isolation. That reassurance is on the record, and on that basis I hope the noble Baroness will not push her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, tells me that it is a victory. I thank the Minister for that confirmation, and I am very pleased that it is not just when some chief constables are going to be sacked; it is actually at the stage I asked for in my speech. That is the key point. If they can be suspended and that does not require consultation with anyone, the fact is that practically all of them have just taken the view that they do not want a big public outing, so they have just resigned anyway. That is what I am trying to stop. The Minister has said that he is going to do exactly what I have asked for. Can someone write that down? I am delighted, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.
Lord Pannick
“(3) The court may, on application by or on behalf of D and on notice to the media, make an order—(a) withholding from the public in proceedings before the court—(i) D’s name, (ii) D’s address,(iii) D’s date of birth,(b) giving a reporting direction (see section 170) in respect of D (if one does not already have effect), or(c) making an anonymity order (see section 171) in respect of D.(4) To make an order under subsection (3) the court must—(a) be satisfied that the order is necessary—(i) to protect against a real risk to the safety of D or another person arising from D being identified as the person alleged to have committed the offence, or(ii) to prevent real harm to the public interest, and(b) be satisfied that the order includes the least restrictive measures possible to address the conditions in (a)(i) or (ii) and is proportionate having regard to the principle of open justice.(4A) Where the court considers that giving notice under subsection (3) would defeat the purpose of the application, it may make a temporary order without notice, which must be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity after notice has been given to the media.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would replace the presumption of anonymity for firearms officers in Clause 168 with a power for the Court to grant anonymity where it is necessary to protect against a real risk to the safety of the officer or another person arising from D being identified as the person alleged to have committed the offence, or to prevent real harm to the public interest, having regard to proportionality and the principle of open justice.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will give me as satisfactory a response in relation to this group as the other Minister just gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Amendments 393B to 393F in this group are in my name. They address Clauses 168 to 171, which will create a presumption of anonymity for an authorised firearms officer who is charged with an offence in relation to the use of a weapon in the exercise of his or her functions. That presumption will apply unless and until that defendant is convicted of the criminal offence.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black of Brentwood, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for adding their names to these amendments. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, cannot be here tonight. They send their apologies. We will all miss their contributions, as they made powerful speeches on this subject in Committee. I also record my gratitude to Emma Snell of Justice and to Sebastian Cuttill of the News Media Association for their very helpful briefings.
Amendment 393B would replace this presumption of anonymity in the Bill with a power for the court to grant anonymity where it considers it necessary to protect against a real risk to the safety of the firearms officer or another person, such as a member of the officer’s family, or to prevent harm to the public interest, having regard to proportionality and to the principle of open justice. That, in essence, is the common-law position that applies now.
I recognise the need for courts to have this power to grant anonymity in appropriate cases, but it would be a mistake to legislate for a statutory presumption. That is because the criminal courts have long proceeded, and rightly so, on the basis that open justice is a core principle of our legal system. It is a core principle because it is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. Restrictions on reporting what goes on in our courts always need to be justified. In the context addressed by Clause 168, there are especially strong reasons for upholding open justice.
We are here typically concerned with the actions of a firearms officer acting on behalf of the state, whose use of a weapon has killed another human being. That event will have led the CPS to bring a criminal prosecution, which means that the CPS believes that two criteria are satisfied—first, that on the available evidence, the court is more likely than not to convict, and secondly, that it is in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution must prove its case, but in this context the interests of open justice are very important in the public interest. The public, not just the family and friends of the deceased, surely have a strong interest in knowing what is alleged against whom.
Open justice, I suggest, is of particular importance at this time, when public confidence in our police force is low—perhaps lower than ever before. A presumption that the press cannot fully report a murder trial will, I fear, inevitably cause further damage to public confidence.
I accept that there will be cases where open justice should give way to the need to protect the defendant and his or her family. The court must have power to provide protection by requiring anonymity, but that must be because of information that provides a reasoned basis for concern that such protection is required in the particular circumstances of the case.
I also emphasise that Clause 168 would confer special protection on firearms officers. The Government do not suggest that other police officers or prison officers whose conduct may lead to the serious injury or death of another person should enjoy this presumption of anonymity, and rightly so. To confer this unique protection on firearms officers is unnecessary because a discretion for the court suffices, and it is wrong in principle because this is a context where the interests of open justice are at their strongest.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere—I am very pleased that he is in his place—suggested that firearms officers might be deterred from taking up such posts if there is no presumption of anonymity. That seems to me, with great respect, a weak argument when no other police officer enjoys such a presumption, when Clause 168 does not guarantee anonymity, when our amendments would allow anonymity in appropriate cases and when a firearms officer is far more likely to be concerned about the risk of prosecution than about the question of anonymity.
Also in Committee, my other noble friend—I do not have very many—Lord Hogan-Howe, whom I am also very pleased to see in his place tonight, emphasised the difficult and important job done by firearms officers. I recognise that, and I agree with my noble friend. That should be carefully borne in mind when decisions are taken in the public interest on whether to prosecute. Once a prosecution is brought, no defendant should enjoy a special presumption of anonymity. My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe also drew attention to the fact that there are not many of these cases. That is no doubt true, but I suggest that adds nothing to the debate on how such cases should be treated when a prosecution is brought.
In Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, emphasised that firearms officers can face serious death threats and intimidation—very regrettable but no doubt true. So can other police officers, and if there is information suggesting such circumstances or a risk of such circumstances, our amendments would allow the judge to protect anonymity. That is the right way to ensure both protection and open justice.
The other amendments that I have tabled, Amendments 393C and 393D, would ensure that the criteria for courts imposing restrictions are the same after conviction and pending an appeal, and Amendments 393E and 393F would ensure that courts have flexible powers to vary or revoke reporting restrictions or anonymity orders in the light of any changes. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to just two amendments, Amendments 393B and 394. Amendment 393B is the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has introduced about anonymity. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. However, I shared with him a few days ago that I have some sympathy with the general position. Police officers should be accountable and one of the main ways in which to be accountable is to be identifiable, which is why they wear numbers and now wear their names. That is important. I therefore hesitate before I argue for anonymity. I am not saying that it is a black-and-white question. However, on balance, I agree with the Government’s proposal, which is to provide anonymity for firearms officers. The assumption is changed from the present: it is that there will be anonymity unless the judge decides there will not be. That is the complete reverse of the situation today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, prefers it as it is today, but would put it in statute rather than common law.
I am going to say more on Amendment 394 and the group of special people we rely on. It is important because, in the case we have heard about of Sergeant Blake and Chris Kaba, the man that he shot, there was clear information before the court that Mr Kaba was a member of an organised crime group. In fact, he was wanted for two firearms offences, so there was reasonable suspicion that he and others who were linked to him had firearms access. That will not always be the case. Despite that, the judge in the case decided to lift the anonymity that had been possible. I met Sergeant Blake a few months ago. The effect on his life and his family was significant. When someone has been named, it cannot be retracted, which is why it is so important to get it right at the beginning. That is why I prefer the Government’s position. It could be argued out but, once argued in, everybody is named and consequences flow from that. Sergeant Blake was incredibly understanding of what had happened. He was not overly critical of anyone at all. We as Parliament have to consider him as one example, but there have been others. So, I prefer the Government’s position and I think it is defensible.
Finally, I made a mistake when I was speaking about this in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, corrected me. He was quite right. I said that it was a small case. It was not about being a small issue but about a small number of people. That is the point I misapplied. I realise it is an important issue. It is also important that these officers get supported. This protection, which can be argued out, is more important than the general principle on this occasion. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that other officers have come under threat who do not carry firearms. They can also apply for anonymity. However, if you are shooting someone dead, it raises the threat and the risk level and I prefer the Government’s calculation. So, I support the Government and not the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Amendment 394 is about trying to get a higher bar before officers are prosecuted. Not too many officers have been prosecuted over the years, and everyone who has been charged has been found not guilty. Some lawyers have said, “Therefore, the system works, why do you worry?” The trouble is that it sometimes takes three to five years for that outcome to arrive, during which time the officers and their families are under incredible pressure. So it matters who gets charged and we have to consider this special group of people. Out of the 145,000 police officers, probably about 3,500 can carry a firearm. They deploy to around 17,000 incidents a year. That was in 2025 in England and Wales. They actually discharged their weapon in between five and 10 operations. They hit fewer people and not everyone who was hit died. My broad point is that they are not a trigger-happy group. There is no evidence that they regularly go out and shoot people. When it happens, it is a serious issue, and of course there should be some accountability. But we rely on them as volunteers. They do not get paid more, and if they ever change their mind—which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—we have no way to force them to do it. You cannot order an officer to carry a firearm in our present regime. We are not America, where it is a condition of service. So we rely on them an awful lot and we prey on their good will quite a lot, too.
I do not want to address the legal issue in terms of these officers, but I want to bring our attention to the policy involved. We all have to bear in mind that there are probably three broad groups of firearms operations. Something happens in front of an officer or they get deployed quickly; it is a planned operation, they are going to arrest somebody in their home; or it is a crime in progress. It all comes down to the same thing. In that second in which you have to make a decision, you remain a human being. You have to decide whether you are going to shoot or not. On the whole, the evidence shows that they get it right. Should they kill someone or hurt them seriously, the whole system, the whole panoply of the state, descends on them. “Why did you do that?” That is not the problem for me.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, raised the issue of other professions. I do not know how many surgeons there are in the Chamber, but when a surgeon makes a mistake and slashes an artery, the whole world does not descend and say, “Why did you do that?” But it does when a firearms officer shoots. I realise there is some distinction, but the outcome is the same. The firearms officer is going to come under severe scrutiny during that period. We have to consider that they remain a human being who did their best that day. They did not go to work to try to kill someone. They went to work to try to do the job that we had asked them to do on our behalf. In an unarmed society with an unarmed police force, I believe that they are a special group.
As I come towards the end of my speech, I should say that I have met most of the officers who, over the past few years, have been charged. One is called Anthony Long. He was under inquiry for 11 years before he was cleared by a Crown Court jury. Each officer I have met who has been in this position has shown great humility. They are the sort of people you would want to give a gun to. It is not about just whether they can shoot straight; it is about the judgment they apply at that time. You want sensible, mature people.
Despite the fact that all these people had been under inquiry for so long, they were incredibly understanding of why they were in that position. They understood that there had to be an inquiry, and they were very understanding of all the different processes. I think that this group of people deserves our honour as well as their own. At the moment, I am afraid, the system—not individuals—is treating them badly. Somebody has to speak up for them, which is why, for me, these amendments have so much power. I realise that there are big legal issues that must be considered—no one is immune to that—but my passion has been to try to support these people in what is, I think, a very difficult job. There is evidence that they are doing it properly; over the past 40 years, there has been no evidence of them doing it badly. There have been no convictions of an officer.
My final point is that it seems as though, on the route to getting into a court, everybody makes the judgment that this is a criminal charge. There is the investigation, which the police sometimes did; now, it is the IOPC. The CPS makes a decision, then it is put before a jury. To me, that is where some common sense gets applied. The benefit of a jury is that we have the judgment of our peers. When they apply their judgment, they conclude that this group of officers is generally doing things right. I wonder why the system cannot do more for firearms officers to encourage them to carry on doing this and taking these very difficult decisions on our behalf without having, in that second, to worry about the consequences over the next few years. We cannot sustain that, and I do not think that they should. That is my reason for arguing for these two amendments.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 403 in this group is in my name.
The group that we are talking about raises the issue whether authorised firearms officers deserve any special protection if they are, or may be, prosecuted for their conduct or if they are convicted. Some would say that they are not so deserving, because it would not be giving equal treatment to all. Others, me included, believe that they most certainly need some additional protection, whether that is a presumption of anonymity, a higher threshold before a prosecution can be brought, a lesser penalty if they are convicted, or a combination of all three.
These are among the bravest people in society. They volunteer for the job so as to protect the public, even though it means exposing themselves to a high risk of death or injury. They are motivated by the highest ideals and deserve special consideration because of it. They are emphatically not in the same position as ordinary members of the public who injure or kill others with a firearm, so I support the statutory presumption of anonymity, which the Government commendably proposed. I also oppose Amendment 393B, which would impose conditions before there can be anonymity.
In fact, I do not think that there is a huge difference between the Government’s Clause 168 and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—whatever number it is. In essence, we are talking about what the default position should be and whether that can be rebutted in the interests of justice, one or either way. The Government have come down in favour of a presumption of anonymity, which is where I come down as well, but I do not think that there is a huge gap.
For me, it goes without saying that the safety of firearms officers and their families is at real risk because of the extensive publicity that such cases attract. Parliament should, therefore, presume that to be the case. However, even anonymity does not avoid the intense stress that such officers, who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us, must endure while waiting for trial, which can, of course, take years, so I agree with the principle behind Amendment 394: that a higher threshold should be set before such a prosecution can take place. Whether this should be as high a threshold as requiring the case to be exceptional before there can be a prosecution is a matter for debate, but I agree that the factors set out in proposed new subsection (5), which would be inserted by Amendment 394—
“the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and … the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments”—
should always be given particular weight.
Where a prosecution is brought, especially if there is no higher threshold for prosecution, my Amendment 403 is designed to mitigate the penalty imposed if certain conditions are met. I tabled this amendment in Committee. but the debate took place with just 10 Peers in the Chamber at 11.15 at night, so I have brought it back on Report. It is about whether police firearms officers who use excessive force on the spur of the moment in the honest but mistaken belief that the degree of force is reasonable, and who would otherwise be entitled to rely on self-defence, should be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Thirty years ago, in the Lee Clegg case, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords recommended that, in these circumstances, law enforcement officers should not be treated the same as terrorists and other murderers if they use excessive force; and that they should be convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I find that a statement of the obvious. Quoting the Court of Appeal, Lord Lloyd of Berwick said:
“There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorist or domestic murders, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car driving through an army checkpoint and, being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the … shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified … we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence which he had committed”.
However, Lord Lloyd ruled that it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law and that it was for Parliament to do so. Here we are, 30 years on, with that opportunity.
In rejecting my amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister said that it would
“create a two-tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duties are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population”.
But is treating police firearms officers differently from other murderers a two-tier justice system? Surely not. We are not treating like with like. Police firearms officers who go on duty, risking their lives to protect us all and, in the words of the Minister, are
“having to make life and death decisions in an instant”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 266.]
are emphatically in a different category from those who kill with an evil motive. The law should therefore treat them differently.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thoroughly welcome these sensible and proportionate amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which he more than ably explained. I was prompted to speak on Amendment 393B having just read the Government’s Protecting What Matters action plan. I have plenty to say on that, but your Lordships will be relieved that I am not going to do so now.
In the plan, the Government readily admit that trust in institutions is in decline and that social cohesion is fraying. I am concerned that, if Clauses 168 to 171 go through unamended, it could create a problem of further distrust in policing. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, saying that there is not a huge gap between the amendment and the Government in relation to presumed anonymity for armed police officers, the Government are proposing an unprecedented rejection of the principles around open justice and, more importantly for me, press freedom. I am concerned that the clauses will limit the ability of the press to report in any meaningful way on cases involving the use of lethal force by police officers.
Replacing the presumption of anonymity should not leave officers vulnerable or unsafe, but the amendment would allow the power to grant anonymity if there are specific risks to safety or if it is in the public interest, to prevent harm. This is a blunt instrument. It would set up a privacy regime that would shut the media out from scrutinising the state’s exercise of power with guns. I cannot see how the public will not see that as covering up when the media will be denied any meaningful opportunity even to contest such anonymity, let alone to report. That is the concern. I am sure that the Minister will explain.
It is interesting that the police have recently been asking for greater freedom to release more details in relation to some investigations. This is not in terms of armed police, but police forces have recognised that suppressing information can lead to misinformation. That can turn nasty if the public feel that there has been a cover-up.
That is a move to transparency to ensure public consent and build trust, which goes in the right direction. I am just worried, although it is not their intention, the clauses will be a step back from a duty to have candour and from the state being transparent when, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, an armed officer representing the state takes another human being’s life. We should not just grant automatic anonymity in that way. We have to at least allow the media to ask questions and scrutinise.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my name is on the series of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has spoken to, and I will make a few brief comments in support of them. Before I do, I shall make a few observations about Amendment 394. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has not yet spoken to it, and he may be able to answer all the points I will make.
I start by saying that I share—with all noble Lords, I think—concern and admiration for the police generally, particularly for police officers who undertake willingly the task of bearing arms on our behalf in circumstances that may conceivably lead to serious harm to them and which call for difficult judgments to be made, often on very little information and in a split second. I entirely understand the concern.
I also wonder whether all these amendments are not significantly inspired by the Chris Kaba case and the officer, Martyn Blake. As to the decision not to grant him anonymity, it is very arguable that the judge came to the wrong decision. But, of course, we must bear in mind that hard cases make bad law and that there is a danger that, from one case, we then proceed to legislate in a way that overreacts and makes a change which is not really justified.
I will deal with Amendment 394, on presumption against prosecution. I am concerned about this. The idea of a presumption against prosecution does not find its way into the criminal law very often. I was able to find only one, the much-criticised Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, where the then Conservative Government brought in a limit to the prosecution—a legal threshold in relation to overseas acts by serving forces rather than police officers. In certain exceptional circumstances there would be a presumption against there being a prosecution after five years. That was much criticised. What I struggle with in this amendment is that, before any prosecution is brought—the Minister will know this better than anyone, really, in your Lordships’ House—there has to be a consideration of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
The factors referred to in this amendment, for example, in proposed new subsection (5)—
“In making a decision to which this section applies, a relevant prosecutor must give particular weight to the following matters … the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and … the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments”—
are absolutely right, but I respectfully say that those are the very considerations that would be taken into account by the prosecution in the ordinary course of affairs when deciding whether there is sufficient evidence and deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. This would put into the criminal law a presumption that does not have a satisfactory precedent and place officers in a particular position. I feel we must leave it to the prosecutors to take all these matters into account in deciding whether it is appropriate to prosecute.
I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I was a barrister who acted on behalf of the police in one of those few cases where an officer did, in fact, unfortunately, kill a suspected criminal. The case went all the way to the House of Lords. It is called Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police. Ashley’s relatives were represented by Sir Keir Starmer, as he was not then, whose junior was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, as he was not then. The argument involved very much the same issues that we have discussed this evening about objective and subjective mistakes. A very junior officer, as part of the armed response unit, thought he had seen a sudden movement. He opened fire and unfortunately killed Mr Ashley. He was prosecuted for murder and acquitted, because it was a mistake. Civil proceedings followed in due course. It was difficult, but he clearly made a mistake and the jury had no difficulty in acquitting him.
That brings me to the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I understand what has been said over the years in relation to those matters, but they are very much taken into consideration by juries in any event. Self-defence would include all those matters, or the urgency of the situation. Although I will listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say, I am not at the moment convinced that we need to change the law.
I said that I do not like presumptions in the context of the criminal law. I do not like presumptions much anyway, which brings me to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. What worries me about the presumption is: what rebuts that presumption? At the moment, the law provides that a judge decides in the particular circumstances whether it is appropriate to grant anonymity, and he or she will take into account all the factors, including the risk of danger to the officer if he or she is named, which is entirely proper. But this presumption would, I respectfully suggest, mean that the judge would be getting a very strong steer from Parliament that he should grant anonymity unless—and we do not really know what the “unless” is.
Granting anonymity runs contrary to the principle of open justice. Although one has considerable sympathy for any officer caught up in the situation, nobody is above the law, whether they are officers or not.
The press has a duty to report cases, particularly cases of this sort, where serious consequences have followed from the action of the state. We know that journalists are thinner on the ground than they once were and often have to cover different courts. I speak with some experience as the chairman of the press regulation body and knowing the pressures that journalists are under. They themselves often have to make representations to judges, in all sorts of circumstances, as to whether there should be an anonymity order or not. They might be faced with having to persuade a judge who has already been told that there is a presumption of anonymity. That is a hard burden to discharge for a journalist who may or may not have some legal representation. As a result, it seems to me almost inevitable that all officers will be granted anonymity.
If that is what Parliament thinks is appropriate, so be it, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking that presumption will mean anything other than automatic anonymity in these circumstances. I think this is a step that should not be taken. Although all these amendments concern a very real issue and concern, open justice and fairness to all seem to me to point to the result that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should be accepted and the other amendments rejected.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he just consider one thing? He made some very strong points. One thing that concerns the officers—although the noble Lord is quite right to identify that there have been relatively few criminal charges over the period—and the reason they are not persuaded by the CPS, or whoever is making the decision, taking into account only sufficiency of evidence and public interest, is that on every occasion the CPS has brought a criminal charge, the jury has disagreed with it. It leads you to wonder what led to that decision-making process, because all the points the noble Lord made about all that is considered do not survive the test of a jury when it arrives.
That is why there is this concern. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Is this the perfect solution? I am not a lawyer and not in a position to judge whether it is the best solution, but it is why this question is raised so frequently—not because of the frequency of the cases but of how often they have been cleared in a very short time after all the careful consideration by very good lawyers who come to a completely different judgment from that offered by a jury.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The prosecuting authorities have decided in these cases, for whatever reason, that they think it appropriate to bring a prosecution, to bring the matter before a court where a jury determines what is right. We trust juries—I know that it is a contentious issue at the moment as to what extent we trust them and in what circumstances—but in cases of this sort juries will remain, whatever happens to the prospective reforms. It shows that juries are perfectly capable of taking into account all the pressures that face officers in the situation the noble Lord describes and they regularly do so.
I am content to leave it for the prosecution to decide whether there is a case. Of course, if, having heard the prosecution’s evidence, the judge decides that there is not a prima facie case, the case can stop at that stage. Then the matter comes before a jury, and the common sense of 12 citizens decides—almost inevitably, it seems, reflecting all the factors we have discussed—that in very rare circumstances would it be appropriate to convict an officer. Precisely as the noble Lord has said, these are rare circumstances; often, the officer has not discharged a gun in anger before—we are not talking about Los Angeles or New York—so I am content with the situation.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police, although I have not discussed this issue with the police.
I came this evening looking to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but a couple of things that he said have caused me some concern. One is about the principle of open justice—yes, it is important to maintain public confidence, and it requires open examination of the evidence, but in police shooting cases, I am not sure that it is a requirement to identify the individual officer concerned. Exactly what happened during the incident has to be heard in open court and openly reported, but not necessarily the identity of the officer at that stage.
The noble Lord also tried to say that firearms officers did not have a unique role, but they do in the use of lethal force. They discharge their weapons on the understanding that it is highly likely that if they do, somebody will die. They aim at the largest body mass and therefore a fatality is the most likely outcome. That is something that no other police officer who is unarmed, or prison officer, as the noble Lord mentioned, would have to face. Therefore, the role of a firearms officer is unique for those reasons.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee; I did so with considerable wariness given the strength and distinguished nature of the lawyers who were stressing the importance of open justice. I listened to their speeches incredibly carefully and the House owes them a great deal for coming forward and making the position clear.
I worry about the situation of firearms officers. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an incredibly important point. Firearms officers do not pick and choose which incidents they attend; they do not have the opportunity to take legal advice before they pull the trigger, and if they do pull the trigger, the likely outcome is death. That is very different from the situations that most police officers find themselves in.
The second point is that we owe them the presumption that we—the Government, their force, and society more generally—will support them in the work that they do, and if they find themselves in the circumstances that we are discussing this evening, their anonymity will be protected until such time as they are convicted, if that is what happens, because by the time their anonymity has been granted, it is too late. I believe that they need to have that certainty at the outset before they go on any missions, before they are deployed.
We ask firearms officers to go into harm’s way. They face intense physical danger from what they do. They are called only to the most serious incidents and stand the risk of being killed themselves. They face the risk of prosecution or perhaps disciplinary action for the shot they discharge, if indeed that is the outcome—which is, as we have heard, incredibly unlikely, but it does happen. We owe them the limited support of the presumption of anonymity, which could be waived if the situation demanded that. It is a big step indeed to go against the presumption of open justice and I fully recognise that—a very powerful argument has been put forward there.
There is one other point to consider that I do not think has been really explored this evening. The obvious conclusion if officers are worried that their names will be publicised should a legal action be brought is that they might hesitate in their duty. They might hesitate to pull that trigger and, in so doing, someone else, a member of the public, may be killed because there is doubt in the minds of those officers. That is something that we should consider very carefully as well.
I got to my feet with considerable temerity, as, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am the only non-policeman or non-lawyer present in the discussion so far. None the less, there are some points to bear in mind, and I support the approach of the Government.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 394 and to the other amendments in this group. Britain has a very proud and distinctive model of policing by consent. The defining feature of that model is that the overwhelming majority of our police officers do not routinely carry firearms and when firearms are deployed it is because the threat is so grave that lethal force may be necessary to protect life.
That responsibility falls on a very small and highly trained group of officers, and I do not think it hyperbole to say that police firearms officers are some of the bravest, most dedicated officers in the country. According to the latest Home Office statistics, as of 31 March 2025, 6,367 police officers were authorised to carry firearms in England and Wales. That compared with 6,473 the year before, so it is clear that their number is shrinking. That is not something we can afford. It is why my amendment would introduce a presumption against the prosecution of armed police officers where they had discharged their firearm. It would do this by requiring a prosecutor when considering bringing charges against an armed officer to apply the principle that it should be exceptional to bring a prosecution against that officer. This raises the threshold for prosecutions to be instituted. The CPS would have to clear a higher bar to do so.
I want to cast aside some incorrect aspersions. I am not suggesting that armed police officers should be above the law—I want to be absolutely clear about that. The higher prosecution threshold that would be introduced by proposed new subsection (4) of my amendment would still permit prosecutors to bring charges against officers where there are exceptional circumstances. All it is saying is that there must be an acknowledgment of the unique nature of the circumstances that lead to an officer discharging their weapon. Proposed subsection (5) would require prosecutors to give particular weight to the unique demands and exceptional stresses to which firearms officers are subjected, as well as the incredible difficulties of making time-sensitive, split-second decisions.
I want to impress this on the House. It is impossible to understand the immense pressure facing you when you are tasked with the responsibility of carrying a police firearm. I know—I have done it. I carried a firearm for a number of years while employed on counterterrorist duties. Imagine the toll it takes on you as a person. To make it worse, you always have the thought in the back of your mind that, if you do have to use your weapon, you might be hounded for years by the press, by protestors and even by the police force you so dutifully served.
To face the possibility of being dragged before the courts simply for doing your job, with your name splashed over all the papers, is enough to deter anyone, but we cannot afford that to happen. All police firearms officers are volunteers. We need these dedicated officers. We rely on them to protect us in this very building—they are outside, right at this very moment, standing ready to prevent any possible attack.
That is why I cannot support the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As I said in Committee, I am firmly supportive of applying the Government’s approach of a presumption in favour of anonymity. The amendments from the noble Lord would not, in my view, substantially alter the status quo, whereby the decision to grant anonymity is at the court’s discretion.
We all say that we must support the police, but support is expressed not only in words; it must be reflected in the structures of law and justice. Those who protect the public in the gravest of circumstances deserve a system that recognises the unique demands placed upon them. Above all, we must ensure that we protect those who protect us. If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, or if I do not hear warm words, I may well seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I apologise; I thought the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, was going to speak only to his amendment, but in fact he was summing up. I should have spoken first.
We have sympathy with the principles behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. They would replace the current presumption of anonymity with a more flexible, case-by-case judicial test, based on real risks to safety, the public interest and open justice. These are important safeguards and they align with our long-held position. From these Benches, we continue to support a carefully balanced presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who face criminal charges, one that can be rebutted when a court considers identification essential for justice or for maintaining public confidence. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would make anonymity the exception, rather than the starting point. That risks undermining the reassurance that these vital specialists need.
In these thankfully rare cases, where hesitation can cost lives, we believe the balance should rest with a rebuttable presumption. It offers protection to officers acting in good faith, without compromising transparency or creating any sense of special treatment. Just as importantly, it protects their families. For me, this is a key issue. Police officers’ children should not have to face abuse at school or live in fear of vigilante threats or gang reprisals. Our approach suggests a middle way, avoiding a chilling effect on recruitment while maintaining public trust through strong judicial oversight.
We are less sympathetic to Amendment 394. While armed officers face exceptional pressures, the proposed presumption against prosecution would send a damaging message that they are being judged by more forgiving standards than other citizens. That is not a principle we believe that we should endorse.
Finally, we understand that the aim of Amendment 403, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to reassure firearms officers that the law recognises the realities of split-second decision-making, but we fear that it would, in practice, create a special homicide defence available only to that group. We would rather continue to trust judges and juries to apply the existing nuanced law, which already allows for context and proportionality, than to carve out a lesser liability for one profession.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments illustrates exactly how sensitive and difficult these cases are, does it not? In some of the amendments, noble Lords are saying that firearms officers should be held to a different standard than the rest of the population, but, in the others, it is being argued that even a small additional protection for them and their families is too great a differential in treatment.
Against that background, I start with Amendments 393B to 393F, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I met the noble Lord, together with the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black, and the News Media Association, and I thank them all for the interesting and constructive conversation that we had. The Government have considered the noble Lord’s amendments with great care. We understand, and entirely support, the principle of open justice and freedom of the press, but what is in issue here is trying to find the appropriate balance.
I am really sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whom I admire greatly, but the Government firmly believe that firearms officers face very real and specific risks from organised crime groups and violent offenders, and that this requires there should be a presumption that only their personal details should be withheld up until such time as they are convicted—and if they are acquitted, that their identity will remain protected.
In doing so, we recognise that firearms officers who are being prosecuted for discharging their firearm face a unique situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. The threats they face before and after the trial are real and, unlike most defendants, if acquitted, they are simply unable to return to their old lives as innocent people. Firearms officers and their families have targets on their back, even if they are cleared of any wrongdoing.
This special set of circumstances requires a tailored response, and we believe that the Government’s proposals achieve the correct balance. Those who are opposed to establishing a presumption of anonymity until conviction have twin concerns: first, that there is insufficient evidence that this is necessary; and, secondly, that it represents the thin end of the wedge. I want to deal briefly with each argument in turn.
First, on the evidence that this is needed, there is no doubt that the threat faced by firearms officers is not theoretical. There are very real risks. As I set out in Committee, and will not repeat in detail, firearms officers can face serious death threats and other forms of intimidation, which also extend to their families. As evidence for the need, there is real concern that the revelation of the identity of police officers who are being prosecuted is having a negative effect on the recruitment and retention of these essential officers. I am not sure that these are exactly the same statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has, but certainly those from the document on armed policing attrition and retention record that, since 2019, there has been a loss of 583 armed officers, or an 8.8% reduction. This is a very real concern.
What is important is that this measure does not force the courts to issue an anonymity order. It will not cause secret trials. Judges must still consider the interests of justice and they have an active duty to uphold open justice. Even if no party challenges the anonymity, they still must, in considering the interests of justice, assess whether a reporting direction is necessary and proportionate. Even when anonymity is granted, the proceedings will remain public and the evidence will be tested in open court.
I am afraid the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is under a misapprehension about what this involves. The only restriction is removing the identity, so they will be referred to throughout all proceedings as Officer A. Everything else will be reported, and, in the event that they are convicted, anonymity will be rescinded and their identity will become known.
A further concern has been the ability of the media to challenge the making of such an order. The Government absolutely understand the point, and we offer the following reassurances. First, by virtue of Criminal Procedure Rule 6.2, courts must actively invite media representations whenever anonymity or reporting restrictions are under consideration, and the judge must create the opportunity for scrutiny.
Secondly, HMCTS has delivered a package of reforms to strengthen media access and support open justice in criminal courts. As part of this reform, every criminal court now has a new circulation list called the reporting restriction application notice list. This list includes contacts from the media distribution list who have specifically agreed to have their details shared with applicants for advance notice. They will be added as mandatory contacts to all reporting restriction application notice lists held by criminal courts to ensure service on their members. In addition, HMCTS has established a media engagement group to improve processes to better serve media professionals in criminal courts.
Thirdly, the law grants the media the right to appeal any decision to make a reporting direction or an anonymity order to the Court of Appeal. But here is one of the most important points: if a judge refuses to make an anonymity order, the prosecution and the defendant have no right of appeal. That is one of the reasons that the Government have decided that the starting point should be a presumption that anonymity is granted.
Would this be the thin end of the wedge? These are unique circumstances. The number of trials is tiny. In the past 10 years there have been two criminal trials for murder or manslaughter as a result of a fatal police shooting. By way of comparison, there have been 13 fatal police shootings since 2019-20. Clauses 168 to 171 have been carefully drafted to strike a lawful and proportionate balance between fundamental rights and the need to protect our firearms officers and their families.
I turn to Amendment 394, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and spoken to powerfully also by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It is one of two amendments that take the opposite view to that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
While we acknowledge, once again, the importance of firearms officers and the debt that we owe them, the Government are unable to support this amendment, for these reasons. It would fundamentally alter the basis upon which prosecutorial decisions are taken by introducing a statutory presumption against prosecution for a particular group of citizens, who in this case happen to be police officers. Without doubt, this would create a two-tier approach to prosecutions in the criminal justice system. All public prosecutorial decisions, as we have heard frequently this evening, are made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which has statutory force. Its two-stage test has stood the test of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggests that the CPS is getting the decisions wrong because of the number of acquittals. With respect to the noble Lord, that rather misses the point. The CPS test is not to decide whether it prosecutes somebody who is guilty. If we knew they were guilty, we would not need the jury. The test is whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. That is an exercise of judgment as to whether it is more likely than not that there will be a conviction. If so, and if the public interest stage is satisfied, the case is put before a jury, who decide whether or not they are actually guilty.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand and accept the distinction that she makes. Over the past 20 or 30 years, the concern for the police officers involved is that, on every occasion that the decision has been made, it has been wrong so far as the jury is concerned. It has left the officers believing, sometimes, that the way that the CPS has discharged its problem—with a public outcry about the shooting—has been to test it in a court, rather than making its own decision for which it should be accountable. I understand the distinction that the Minister makes, therefore, but it is spooky that on every occasion the CPS has got it wrong so far as juries are concerned.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, again, that is a fundamental misunderstanding. If the CPS had got it wrong, the judge would have withdrawn it at half-time. It would never have got as far as a jury. The two things —one of them being the fact that the jury has acquitted—simply do not correlate.
The noble Lord’s amendment gives no indication as to how this proposed test would fit with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, save that we would then have a two-tier system, with one rule for the police and another for the citizens they police. It is hard to see how such a situation could command public confidence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, the unique position of firearms officers will be taken into consideration at both stages of the full code test. In cases involving fatal police shootings, the Crown Prosecution Service already considers whether the officer’s actions were necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, as the officer honestly believed them to be, recognising how difficult it can be to make fine decisions in the heat of the moment. It is the same law that applies to every citizen. Prosecutions in these cases are very rare, reflecting the high threshold already applied; an additional statutory presumption is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 403 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which was, as ever, attractively advanced by him. The Government’s position remains as it was in Committee: there cannot be a separate criminal law for police officers in homicide cases. The current legal framework already offers robust protection for those who act under a genuine and honest belief, even if that belief later proves to be mistaken. In any event, the Law Commission is considering the offence of homicide, and the Government will consider its report carefully in due course.
I am grateful for the debate that we have had today. It is clear that there are strongly held views on both sides, but the Government believe that they have struck the right balance to protect our highly valued armed police officers while not standing in the way of the principles of open justice and a single-tier justice system. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been an interesting and important debate on a vital question. I am also grateful to the Minister and her officials, who have devoted considerable time to meeting me and others concerned about this matter, for taking our concerns so seriously. My noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere made the point that there is much agreement on all sides, and there is. It is very important to emphasise that. We all agree that firearms officers do a vital job. They do it in the public interest, they do it in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and they have our thanks for their service.
Respectfully, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on Amendment 394, for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Faulks. To say to the public that a particular category of defendant—firearms officers—should be prosecuted only if the circumstances are exceptional would send a terrible message to the public and damage public confidence in cases where someone has died by reason of the actions of an officer of state. Surely the standard principle should apply: the CPS asks itself whether a conviction is more likely than not and whether it is in the public interest for there to be a prosecution. As my noble friend Lord Faulks said, in assessing the public interest and whether a conviction is likely, the CPS of course takes into account all the circumstances; in particular, whether the officer is acting normally in the heat of the moment in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
I have a couple of points on my amendment in relation to anonymity. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the powerful point that firearms officers are unique in that they are licensed to shoot, and that, in almost all cases where they exercise that power, the likely outcome is death. I say to the House that this special and unique role makes it all the more important that open justice fully applies, unless there is information before the court suggesting that anonymity is needed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made the powerful point that these officers deserve certainty, because otherwise, when they go out to work and are faced with an immediate threat, or what they perceive to be an immediate threat, they might hesitate before shooting as they are worried about the consequences for them. This would be very much against the public interest. I say to the noble Viscount that, under Clause 168, the firearms officer does not have certainty. All that the Government are providing is a presumption, and, as the Minister rightly emphasised, the court will decide, even with a presumption, whether anonymity should apply.
However, whatever noble Lords may think of my judgment on this, I can count, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Presumption against prosecution for alleged conduct by authorised firearms officers(1) Where a relevant prosecutor makes a decision to which this section applies, the prosecutor must, in making the decision—(a) apply the principle set out in subsection (4), and(b) comply with subsection (5).(2) This section applies to a decision of a relevant prosecutor as to—(a) whether or not proceedings should be brought against a person (“D”) for a relevant offence, or(b) whether or not any proceedings against D for a relevant offence should be continued,in England and Wales.(3) In this section, an offence is a “relevant offence” if—(a) it is alleged to have been committed by D acting in the exercise of functions as an authorised firearms officer,(b) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence involved the use by D of a lethal barrelled weapon to discharge a conventional round, and(c) D was, at the time of the alleged offence, authorised by the relevant authority to use that weapon with that round.(4) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that it is to be exceptional for a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which this section applies to determine that proceedings should be brought against D for the offence or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued.(5) In making a decision to which this section applies, a relevant prosecutor must give particular weight to the following matters—(a) the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and(b) the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments as are required by the nature of D’s functions as an authorised firearms officer.(6) The following are “relevant prosecutors” for the purposes of this section—(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions,(b) a Crown Prosecutor, or(c) any person to whom the institution or taking over of proceedings for a relevant offence mentioned has been assigned under section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (conduct of prosecutions on behalf of the CPS).(7) In this section, “authorised firearms officer” means—(a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised by the relevant chief officer to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, (b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised by the Director General of the National Crime Agency to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a National Crime Agency officer,(c) a member of the Police Service of Scotland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland who—(i) is provided under section 98 of the Police Act 1996 (cross-border aid of one police force by another) for the assistance of a police force in England and Wales, and(ii) is authorised by the relevant authority to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, or(d) a member of the armed forces who—(i) is deployed in support of a relevant police force or the National Crime Agency, and(ii) is authorised by the Secretary of State to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round for the purposes of that deployment.(8) In this section—“conventional round” means any shot, bullet or other missile other than one designed to be used without its use giving rise to a substantial risk of causing death or serious injury;“lethal barrelled weapon” has the meaning given by section 57(1B) of the Firearms Act 1968;“member of the armed forces” means a person who is subject to service law (see section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);“relevant authority” means—(a) in relation to a member of a relevant police force, the relevant chief officer;(b) in relation to a National Crime Agency officer, the Director General of the National Crime Agency;(c) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Scotland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland;(d) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;(e) in relation to a member of the armed forces, the Secretary of State;“relevant chief officer” means—(a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of police of that police force;(b) in relation to the British Transport Police Force, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force;(c) in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;(d) in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Chief Constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;“relevant police force” means—(a) a police force in England and Wales,(b) the British Transport Police Force,(c) the Ministry of Defence Police, or(d) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply a presumption against prosecution for armed police officers where they discharge their weapons, and requires prosecutors to consider the unique burdens placed on armed officers.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 394 seeks a presumption against prosecution for alleged conduct by authorised firearms officers. I really think that we owe it to firearms officers, who have an exceptional responsibility, to provide this presumption against prosecution. I have to say that I did not hear the warm words that I was looking for from the Government Front Bench, so I am afraid that I seek to divide the House on this.
Lord Hanson of Flint
““law enforcement employer” has the meaning given by section 174(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of “law enforcement employer” in clause 174 to all of clauses 173 to 178.
“ScheduleNotification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offencesPart 1Child cruelty offencesOffences Against the Person Act 1861 (c.100)
1 An offence under section 27 of the Offences Against the Person 1861 (abandoning or exposing a child), if the offender— (a) was 18 or over, and(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)
2 An offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (child cruelty) if the offender—(a) was 18 or over, or(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Infanticide Act 1938 (c. 36)
3 An offence under section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 (infanticide).Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c. 31)
4 An offence under section 1 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (female genital mutilation), if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.5 An offence under section 2 of that Act (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia), if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.6 An offence under section 3 of that Act (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia), if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)
7 (1) An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 of causing or allowing a person’s death, if the victim was under 18.(2) An offence under that section of causing or allowing a person to suffer serious physical harm, if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Part 2Corresponding service offences8 (1) An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence listed in Part 1 of this Schedule.(2) Section 48 of that Act (attempts, conspiracy, encouragement and assistance and aiding and abetting outside England and Wales) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if the reference in subsection (3)(b) to any of the following provisions of that Act were a reference to this paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule lists offences which are child cruelty offences for the purposes of my first new clause inserted after clause 164.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to add civilian employees to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and British Transport Police advisory lists, where allegations are made against them after they resign or retire. This reflects the position for civilian employees of territorial police forces under section 88I of the Police Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the meaning of “disciplinary proceedings” in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police.
Baroness Doocey
“Police training: independent review(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish an independent review of the quality of in-service police officer training within police forces in England and Wales.(2) The review must—(a) assess the consistency, effectiveness and outcomes of all training provided to police officers after completion of their initial entry-level training, including all—(i) in-service training,(ii) workforce development programmes,(iii) refresher courses, and(iv) specialist training;(b) consider the extent to which training equips officers with the necessary skills, knowledge and professional standards to reflect the demands of modern policing, including—(i) digital skills,(ii) investigative skills,(iii) trauma awareness and conflict management, and(iv) processes by which police officers are informed of, and trained in, changes to the law, and(c) make recommendations for improvement, where appropriate.(3) The review established under subsection (1) must complete its work within 12 months of its establishment.(4) Within three months of receiving the review, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament containing their response and proposals to take forward the recommendations in the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to establish an independent review on police training.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 398 I will speak also to the other amendment in my name, Amendment 399. Systemic flaws in our training infrastructure leave front-line officers underequipped and the public at risk. Training should be the bedrock of policing excellence, not a Cinderella function that is both underfunded and undervalued.
In Committee, the Minister asked the House to wait for solutions in the Government’s White Paper. That document has now arrived but, instead of solutions, it proposes to streamline training, and even scopes a reduction in essential public and personal safety training. In the real world of policing, “streamline” is too often code for cutting corners. At a time when one-third of our officers have less than five years’ service—the most inexperienced workforce in decades—reducing the frequency of safety and de-escalating training is a dangerous recipe for increased injuries and risk of misconduct.
The White Paper offers licences to practise and digital passports. These are bureaucratic distractions, not real reform. We risk burying officers under accreditation paperwork while they struggle to build chargeable cases for complex modern crimes such as cuckooing, stalking and online fraud.
Most concerning is the shift towards learning on the job within everyday operational work. For an inexperienced force, this too often means picking up bad habits from equally inexperienced colleagues. Furthermore, by absorbing the College of Policing into the new national police service, the Government are asking the police to mark their own homework. No organisation can objectively evaluate its own systemic failings. An independent statutory review should be non-negotiable. We cannot keep adding new duties into the statute book—respect orders, offensive weapons laws and the rest—without a concurrent independent assessment to check whether the training system, last audited nationally in 2012, can actually deliver them.
Amendment 399 addresses another critical gap by placing a statutory duty on every police force to provide regular, high-quality mental health training. Mental health calls now constitute 15% to 25% of all police demand, yet too many officers lack the specialist training to manage them safely. The amendment seeks to establish a national minimum standard aligned with “right care, right person”, requiring every officer to complete initial training within six months of assuming front-line duties, followed by refreshers every two years.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for bringing back her Amendment 398. We broadly supported the intention behind her amendment in Committee, and we echo that today. It is of course not acceptable that there has been no independent review of the quality of the more than £400 million spent annually on training for eight years, and the statistics on police officer experience and unsolved crimes bear witness to that fact.
I am grateful that, since our debate in Committee, the Government have brought forward a White Paper that covers many aspects of policing, including training. That is a welcome step, but perhaps the Minister could outline some more specifics on the form that this reform will take? I am conscious that the College of Policing is still working on precise proposals, but an update would be very much appreciated. It is a positive sign that the Government recognise this gap in our policing and seem to be acting on it. As such, while we support the noble Baroness’s intention, we believe that letting the Government carry out their work is a more practical next step.
As we noted in Committee, while we also support the noble Baroness’s intention in Amendment 399 to provide the best possible care to those with mental health problems, we cannot support this specific measure. The Government made it clear in the Mental Health Act last year that they want to reduce the role of police in mental health decisions. We broadly support that. It reflects the belief that health workers, not the police, are the right officials to deal with mental health issues. Any police training must not blur this clear distinction. That said, I understand that police officers are often the first responders to situations concerning mental health patients, so I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and would welcome the Minister underlining the Government’s position on this in his reply.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for these amendments, which bring us back to the important issue of police training.
Amendment 398 would require the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police training. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, the College of Policing is responsible for setting national training standards, including the police curriculum and accreditations for specialist roles. Our police reform White Paper set out our commitment to develop a licence to practise for policing. It will seek to create a unified system that brings together mandatory training with consistent professional development and well-being support.
As we work with the sector, we will examine the existing training landscape and look to the findings of the police leadership commission, led by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. We will also consider how this model can build on the accreditations and licensing already delivered by the College of Policing in specialist operational areas.
As has been noted, both this evening and in Committee, the College of Policing is also developing a national strategic training panel, which will provide further sector-led insight into existing training. We would not want to pre-empt the outcomes of this work or create a burden of extensive reviews for the sector when much activity is under way through police reform. We therefore do not believe it necessary for the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police officer training and development, as proposed in Amendment 398. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, as these issues have been examined comprehensively through existing work. I can assure her that it is a key element of our police reform agenda. Having published the White Paper, we will obviously progress that at the appropriate time and produce further reforms that may be necessary, which there will be further opportunities for your Lordships’ House and the other place to debate at length, whether through a legislative vehicle or not.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was rather dismissive of introducing the licence to practise. Officers deserve a clear and consistent structure to empower them to learn, train and develop as skilled professionals. Once implemented, a licence model will provide greater assurance that the police have the correct training and well-being support to do their jobs and that there are regular reviews to ensure that they meet national standards. We recognise that we will not be able to introduce a licensing model overnight, but we have set out the first steps for a licensing model, including mandatory leadership standards and a strong performance management framework.
Amendment 399 seeks to ensure that police officers have the training required to deal with people suffering through a mental health crisis. As I indicated, the setting of standards and the provision of mandatory and non-mandatory training material is a matter for the College of Policing. It provides core learning standards, which includes the initial training for officers under the Police Constable Entry Programme. This underpins initial learning levels around autism, learning disabilities, mental health, neurodiversity and other vulnerabilities. Through forces utilising this established training, officers are taught to assess vulnerability and amend their approaches as required to understand how best to communicate with those who are vulnerable for whatever reason, and to understand how to support people exhibiting these needs to comprehend these powers in law and continue to amass specialist knowledge to work with other relevant agencies to help individuals.
We consider it impractical to expect, or indeed require, police officers to become experts in the entire range of mental health and vulnerability conditions, including autism and learning disabilities. Instead, the College of Policing rightly seeks to equip them to make rational decisions in a wide range of circumstances, and to treat people fairly and with humanity at all times.
I have said this a number of times: all forces are operationally independent of government. To seek to impose requirements on mandatory training risks undermining that very principle. Furthermore, each force has unique situations—different pressures, priorities, demographics and needs. To mandate that a small rural force must undertake the same training as a large urban force will not give it the flexibility it needs to best serve its local communities. Furthermore, the College of Policing is best placed to draw on its expertise to determine the relevant standards and training that the police require.
The training already provided equips officers with the knowledge to recognise indicators of mental health and learning disabilities; to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators; to understand their police powers; and to develop specialist knowledge to work with other agencies to help individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, this is not about replacing real experts and mental health workers, in the NHS and other agencies, who are best placed to provide that specialist knowledge and expertise.
I hope that, on the basis of these comments and the work already under way, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think it matters who is responsible for training. What matters is that training is appropriate and that officers are trained.
I spent most of last year talking to chief constables in the whole of the UK. Their view was very different from what the Minister just said. Their view was that they do not get sufficient training, that training is piecemeal and that they have virtually no training in anything to do with mental health. I do not think they were just making that up; this was something that they genuinely believed. In fact, I am pretty certain about it.
Also, HMICFRS has reported time and again that training is inconsistent, the quality is weak, there are weak checks on force-run programmes, there is poor support for new officers and obvious risks in forces marking their own homework. These gaps demand independent scrutiny. That is not similar to what the Minister just said. Training is a vital ingredient for officers. We sit in this House and in the other place, and we make rules and regulations as to what should happen. But we do not make sure that the people on the ground facing these problems every day are equipped to deal with them. That is, frankly, a disgrace. The fact that there has been no independent check on police training since 2012 is almost beyond belief. However, it is late, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Duty to record algorithmic tools(1) Each police force in England and Wales must disclose its use of any algorithmic tool used in the exercise of its functions that may affect the rights, entitlements or obligations of individuals by completing entries in the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS).(2) Under subsection (1) “algorithmic tool” means a product, application or device that supports or solves a specific problem using complex algorithms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on police forces to disclose any algorithmic tool used in the exercise of its functions.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 401 in my name. The amendment would place a clear legal duty on police forces to declare high-impact algorithmic tools using the Government’s algorithmic transparency recording standards, known as ATRS. It is currently just professional guidance, not a binding obligation, and compliance is dangerously patchy, with many live operational tools still undeclared publicly. Yesterday, a search of the public repository found only two entries for police AI tools, despite systems such as live facial recognition being in widespread use.
The Government’s White Paper promises a new registry through its police.ai initiative. However, without statutory backing, this risks becoming another underused voluntary scheme that takes years to implement while AI moves at a relentless pace. In Committee, the Minister claimed that the ATRS was too jargon-heavy and designed only for Whitehall. The ATRS contains dual tiers, a plain English narrative for citizens and technical details for experts. The real barrier is not jargon but commercial confidentiality clauses in procurement contracts. Without a statutory duty, forces cannot override these clauses, even where tools restrict rights and freedoms.
The Minister was also concerned about compromising operational effectiveness and scrutiny. The ATRS already builds in exemptions for national security and cases where disclosure would prejudice law enforcement. A statutory duty would codify these existing safeguards, not remove them. We are talking about tools of state coercion, predictive pre-crime models and risk-scoring 999 calls. The public are entitled to operational transparency to judge their fairness. Defendants cannot challenge what they cannot see.
My Amendment 401 responds to the national audit of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. It mandates a national plan, with clear milestones to modernise police data systems for real-time intelligence sharing. The Government’s White Paper admits that 90% of crime now has a digital element and that policing has fallen behind. Fragmented IT creates a back door for security vulnerabilities and a forensic backlog of 20,000 devices. The Minister insists that existing programmes offer more agility than a statutory plan, but this piecemeal approach is exactly what has failed us for 30 years.
I welcome the NPCC’s recent announcement of a national data integration and exploitation service. However, this is still at the scoping stage, offering only guidance. It lacks binding timelines and parliamentary oversight, which the serious failings exposed in the audit of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, suggest are urgently needed and that Amendment 401 would deliver. The Home Secretary says that she wants to go big or go home on police reform. This is her chance: a clear pathway towards a national strategic overhaul. A basic transparency duty must be part of that foundation. The service with the most intrusive powers should not work to a lower transparency bar than Whitehall. I beg to move.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I was going to speak on Amendments 400 and 407 in this group, but my noble friend Lady Doocey made such an excellent contribution that I will skip my speech on Amendment 400. I want to say, though, that I am not quite sure what the point is of me speaking on any amendment at this stupid time of day and with no chance of a meaningful Division to test the opinion of the House. What we are doing here is not scrutiny; it is just going through the motions. Nevertheless, I will go ahead with my speech on Amendment 407, if only to put my views on the record.
Amendment 407 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, who is not here. As my name is also on the amendment, I may, I believe, speak to it on her behalf. Am I correct?
Lord Strasburger (LD)
Thank you. Amendment 407 asks us to make a practical decision about policing and tackling violence against women and girls. It is not—I repeat, not—about taking sides in a culture war. Recording biological sex in every case is about getting the basics right: honest crime figures, sound operational decisions and better protection for victims of violence. If we do not know clearly in our police data who is male and who is female, we cannot properly track male violence, spot patterns and target resources where they are most needed.
When police forces blur sex and gender identity, the data starts to go wrong. Hardly any perpetrators of sexual violence are women, so it takes only a small number of male offenders being recorded as women to make it look—wrongly—as if women are suddenly committing many more violent and sexual offences. That distorts our statistics, makes it harder to see the true scale of male violence against women, and risks bad safeguarding decisions.
If systems shift between recording sex, gender as perceived or self-identified gender, we lose track of the trends. We can no longer say with confidence whether male violence is rising or falling, or whether policy changes are working. When the public discover that “female” means one thing in one table and something different in another, trust in policing and government data inevitably suffers.
Professor Alice Sullivan is one of the UK’s leading experts in quantitative social science. She was appointed by the Government to independently review how public organisations can best collect data on sex and gender. Her review cuts through the confusion that currently exists. It says that, when the state needs sex data, it should ask a simple factual question about biological sex—“What is your sex: male or female?”—and that that must be kept separate from any voluntary questions about gender identity. It strongly recommends that all police forces record biological sex in all relevant systems.
Some people worry that this will force trans people to out themselves to the police. It should not and it does not have to. The police already record very sensitive information—religion, disability, sexuality—while respecting confidentiality, human rights and data protection law. The sex question is about biological reality for operational and statistical purposes. Held securely in background systems, it is not a licence to broadcast someone’s history or to deny their gender identity in day-to-day interactions. Where there is a need to understand gender identity, that can be done through a separate, clearly labelled voluntary question with strict safeguards.
The choice is stark. If we do not record biological sex, we accept distorted crime figures, poorer operational decisions, broken trend data and growing public mistrust. If we do record biological sex clearly and consistently, we give ourselves honest statistics, better safeguarding and a policing system that can see and therefore tackle the reality of male violence against women and girls.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 407, on the recording of sex in police data. It is a real shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, is unable to be with us because she would have introduced it very elegantly.
A year ago, in March 2025, Professor Alice Sullivan’s Review of Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender came out. It pointed out:
“It is well-established that sex is a major determinant of offending and victimisation”.
The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, may have been going through the motions but he went through them very well by explaining clearly why this amendment matters. As he pointed out, it is very difficult for the Government to claim to have a target-based campaign to reduce violence against women and girls if they do not have consistent, accurate data in relation to women and girls. Although Professor Sullivan’s review was broadly welcomed by the Government, its recommendations have not yet been acted on. This amendment attempts to nudge some action from the Government.
The issue of delayed guidance is a constant problem. The Women’s Rights Network recently contacted the National Police Chiefs’ Council, inquiring whether it intends to now record sex accurately and address what it said was the “ideological corruption of data”. The NPCC’s reply says that
“updates to the collection and recording of sex and gender reassignment questions are pending subject to the issue of national guidance by the Office for National Statistics/Government Statistical Service following the UK Supreme Court ruling earlier this year”.
That is one pending answer. Individual police forces responding to a variety of organisations’ queries about the continued use of a variety of approaches to collecting sex data—including self-ID, recording a rapist as female and so on—say that they are waiting for guidance from the ONS and the GSS. Is there anyone not waiting for guidance? It feels as though this is a waste of time that is unnecessarily adding to confusion.
In Committee, I went into detail about differing and contradictory data collection practices across police forces. I will not repeat that, but recording practices vary not just between but within criminal justice agencies and even relevant government departments. As there are 40 different databases at a national level relating to criminal justice, the data that is being collected as we speak is full of discrepancies. The Home Office’s annual data requirement on demographic data, for example, advises police forces to record sex subject to a gender recognition certificate. Other mandatory Home Office standards—on police use of force, for example—require officers to record perceived gender, with a choice of male, female or other. There are also the multi agency public protection arrangements, which focus on protecting the public from the most serious harm from sexual and violent offenders, including convicted terrorists. They too conflate sex and gender in their data collection.
However, the Murray Blackburn Mackenzie criminal justice blog discovered via a freedom of information request that MAPPA provides police officers across the UK with
“51 options to record the gender identity of high-risk offenders”.
How does it help to keep the public safe, or aid operational coherence, to know whether a terrorist or paedophile is pangender, genderqueer, agender, bi-gender or gender-fluid, just to name a few of the 51 options they could fill in? I am not trying to be glib; I am just urging the Government to bring clarity and consistency to the collection of data on sex in relation to victims and perpetrators, because otherwise I think it is unfair to claim that there is anything like an evidence-based policy when it comes to sex and, indeed, gender.
We have recently had some exchanges about the new aggravated offences in relation to transgender people, and there are people who are transgender who claim that hate speech and hate crime against them has gone up. I am not challenging whether or not that is true. But to collate the data to make a case for that, one has to make a distinction in the collection of data between somebody who is transgender and somebody who says “I am a woman” who is in fact a transgender person who identifies as a woman.
I think that, for all victims concerned, let alone for understanding the nature of offenders, we need to have accurate, consistent data across all criminal justice agencies and all police forces. I hope that the Minister will at least give us an assurance that the recommendations of Professor Sullivan’s fine and important review—which is full of detail and evidence, with practical conclusions, and which the Government have welcomed—will be acted on. If we can get that assurance tonight, that would be brilliant. If there is any government reluctance to accept Professor Sullivan’s review, it would be really helpful to understand why—what the hold-up is—and maybe the Minister could explain that too.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, given what the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said about the lateness of the hour, which I think we are all aware of, I want to be very short on my concerns about Amendments 406 and 407. I am sorry not to see the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, in her place.
My concerns about both amendments are about practicality and the dignity of people. In a nutshell, this is what they have in common: the police are going to be the race police and the sex police in addition to being the police, and they require police officers to make a judgment even against the way that the suspect—or the victim—defines themselves at any stage in the criminal justice process. I think that is a mistake.
How is this going to work? A victim goes to the police because they have experienced an assault or another serious crime. Whatever community or person they are, they will go to the police, and, under both these amendments, the police officer is required to interrogate whether they are who they say they are on sex and race grounds. I think this is a real mistake, and it will not help the police in the difficult work they have to do and certainly will not help all our communities in these difficult times.
I think that is one minute and 58 seconds. I hope noble Lords understand my point.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak on a slightly different topic: my Amendment 409FA. I have tabled it because we face a three-pronged crisis. First, there is the growing evidence of foreign interference from Governments and individuals seeking to subvert our democracy. The case of the former Reform UK leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, who pled guilty to eight charges of bribery, is perhaps the most prominent example, but it is by no means the only one—as shown, for example, by MI5’s recent alert to MPs, noble Lords and parliamentary staff after finding that Chinese intelligence officers were attempting to recruit people.
Secondly, there have been far too many other political scandals involving misbehaviour by politicians, such as those involving the then Lord Mandelson, although he is, sadly, by no means the only person from this House, or due to join this House, who has recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Thirdly, trust in politics and politicians is at a worryingly low level. A headline from the 41st British Social Attitudes survey, for example, was:
“Trust and confidence in Britain’s system of government at record low”.
Given recent events, it is a reasonable fear that future BSA data will show new record lows being hit. We therefore need to up our game. It is welcome that the Government are taking some steps to do so. The plans in the Hillsborough Bill to modernise the law over misconduct in public office are particularly welcome.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, after that, I had better begin by confessing a misdemeanour. Many years ago, I added my terrier’s name to the census as a “rodent operative” and gave her age in dog years. That illustrates that it is important that when we are gathering data it is, by and large, reliable.
In fact, the principles of GDPR should surely lead us to say that we have no business collecting personal data from people if we are not going to use it. If we are collecting data that is so remarkably corrupt as some of the data that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, talked about, it is useless. It tells us nothing about what is going on in society. It has no function—there is no valid use we can make of that data—so we should not be collecting it.
The first question for the police and the Government to ask themselves is whether they need the data. Do they actually need to record sex in all crimes and for all victims. If so, what will they use that data for? If they are going to use it, is it not important that it is accurate? They should choose, therefore, what data they record according to the use they are going to make of it. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with Amendments 406 and 407. I am, despite my past bad behaviour, in favour of accurate data.
I end by giving the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a moment’s comfort. Once an amendment is on the Marshalled List, it is the property of the House—anybody can move it or address it.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak incredibly briefly, purely because the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. She personally spoke to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Katz, and she apologises. She was otherwise detained and sends her regrets.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I said earlier, I am a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police. However, I have not discussed this subject with the police; these are my personal views.
With regard to Amendments 406 and 407, from my operational policing experience I know that the proportion of transgender men and women in the general population is very small. The proportion of offenders who are transgender is even smaller, and the number of transgender people who are convicted of violence is tiny. The number of criminal offences committed by transgender people is neither statistically nor operationally significant for the police.
On victim data, the most important operationally useful data for the police in relation to hate crime is how the victim identifies themselves. For other offences, it is what motivated the assailant—that is, what did the assailant perceive the victim to be? Did the assailant perceive the person to be female, in which case it is misogyny? Did they perceive the victim to be transgender, in which case it is transphobia? The birth sex of the victim is not that operationally significant for the police, nor is it likely to be statistically significant.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have one sentence to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The Office for National Statistics, in response to an FoI, said on the collection of data in relation to the “gender identity different from sex registered at birth” category:
“We have to be robust enough to provide reliable estimates”,
but there is not enough data to be able to do that. Why? Because the data is so low that it is statistically insignificant. It is not corrupt and it is not many more to twist it for women. We need to be factually accurate when looking at this issue.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was not making the point it has been assumed I was making. This is about consistency, which is the point made by Professor Sullivan. Different police forces are collecting different data on gender identity or sex, sometimes conflating the two and sometimes using multiple variations on a theme. I then used the analogy of this happening across criminal justice. From the point of view of whatever evidence someone is trying to collect, as has just been pointed out, if we are going to collect data—and maybe we should not bother—will it be useful if it is different all over the country depending on the department?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am struggling to hear the question in the noble Baroness’s intervention. I repeat the point that the Office for National Statistics and the police data that is currently collected both say the numbers are so low they are insignificant and therefore unusable.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments raises two significant issues for modern policing: transparency in the use of algorithmic tools and the modernisation of police data and intelligence systems.
I turn first to Amendment 400, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We on these Benches recognise the intention behind the proposal. As policing increasingly makes use of complex digital tools, such as data analytics and algorithms, it is entirely right that questions of transparency and public confidence are taken seriously. However, as discussed in Committee, we should be mindful that policing operates in a sensitive operational environment. Any transparency framework must strike the right balance between openness on the one hand and the need to protect investigative capability and operational effectiveness on the other.
Amendment 401, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, addresses a different but equally important issue: the state of police data and intelligence systems. Few would dispute that technology within policing must keep pace with the demands of modern crime, and the challenge is not simply identifying the problem but determining the most effective mechanism to address it. Modernising policing technology is a complex and ongoing task that already involves national programmes, investment decisions and operational input from forces themselves.
For these reasons, while we recognise the important objectives behind these amendments, the question for noble Lords is whether the specific legislative approach proposed here is the most effective way of delivering them.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Cash seek to require the police to record the ethnicity and sex of a suspect. These are steps that these Benches wholly support. The importance of these measures can hardly be overstated. Recording ethnicity data has been recommended by experts of all professions, parties and associations. It is a requisite for enabling police to track and measure crime trends within certain communities and serves a secondary purpose of allaying or affirming arguments and claims about offending statistics, which currently are regrettably too often reduced to conjecture. Similarly, we support the recording of sex data as part of a larger drive to secure the rights of women by delineating sex from whatever gender identity an individual assigns themselves.
We are entirely supportive, therefore, of my noble friend Lady Cash’s amendments and are grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken in support of them tonight. I hope the Minister agrees that these are issues that should be above the political divide and that these amendments will improve operational efficiency. I look forward to his response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate on a wide-ranging group of amendments.
I begin with Amendment 400, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I fully agree—indeed, we have cross-party consensus here—with the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by the police and acknowledge the current lack of a complete or consistent national picture of police use of AI, as has been highlighted by the noble Baroness. However, the algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, was designed for central government and arm’s-length body use and is simply not the most effective or proportionate mechanism for delivering meaningful transparency in an operational policing context.
As we announced in the policing reform White Paper, the Government are taking forward a national registry of police AI deployments. The registry will be operated by the new national centre for AI and policing, which will be launched later this spring. This police-specific registry approach will address directly the concerns raised in Committee, and again this evening, about patchy disclosure, public confidence and accountability, while respecting operational independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly noted the importance of having a flexible approach when it comes to operational policing. Locking policing into an inflexible statutory mechanism to disclose tools under the ATRS, even as an interim measure, would risk duplicative reporting, unclear disclosure expectations and putting additional administrative burdens on forces without improving public understanding or oversight.
The policing registry is an active programme of work designed specifically to close the transparency gap. It will adopt a tiered approach to transparency. All operational AI deployments will be recorded nationally, while a robust exemptions framework will protect genuinely sensitive capabilities from public disclosure, in a similar manner to how the Freedom of Information Act operates. This approach is designed to deliver clear narratives for the public, with named officers accountable for AI deployments in their force and strong compliance incentives. The Government fully expect police forces to utilise the registry and be transparent with the public about the algorithms they are using and the steps that have been taken to ensure they are being used responsibly. This is vital to building and maintaining public consent for the use of these powerful tools.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and am pleased to hear that there is to be a new registry. I think the Minister said that it will be up and coming in a couple of months and that, critically, it will deal with the issues that I raised both in Committee and tonight on Report. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Exception of the police from the public sector equality dutyIn schedule 18 (public sector equality duty: exceptions) of the Equality Act 2010, after paragraph 3 insert—“The Police
3A (1) Section 149 does not apply to any police force when exercising policing or law enforcement functions.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, “police force” includes—(a) a police force maintained by a local policing body,(b) the British Transport Police,(c) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, and(d) the Ministry of Defence Police.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exempt the police from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, so as to ensure they are solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 402, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, concerns the application of the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, specifically to policing and law enforcement functions. The amendment would ensure that police forces are left to focus on their core duties—to prevent crime and protect the public—without being constrained.
Every day, police officers must make difficult and sometimes instantaneous decisions in the most challenging circumstances, and their priority must always be public safety. This amendment provides a clear and limited exception from the public sector equality duty when, and only when, police forces are exercising their operational policing and law enforcement functions. Operational decision-making, which so often takes place in fast-moving situations, must be guided first and foremost by the need to prevent harm and uphold the law. Police powers are already limited by statute, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, regulations, ethics codes, codes of practice, the IOPC and, of course, the courts, not to mention operational safeguards.
This amendment would ensure that clarity and focus are restored to the operational framework of the police. It would allow officers to concentrate on stopping crimes and protecting victims, without the risks that those decisions could later be questioned by a framework that was never designed with front-line policing in mind. I know that my noble friend Lord Davies and the Minister had a spirited debate in Committee on this topic. I must be entirely frank with your Lordships that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House on this matter. I would like to probe the Government, however, as to their rationale on retaining the current framework and its impact on policing. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is me again. I declare my interest as a paid adviser to the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, particularly on issues of culture and leadership.
In the UK, we police by consent. That relies on public trust and confidence. Public trust and confidence, in turn, relies on the police treating every member of the public with dignity and respect, no matter their background or the community with which they identify. In addition, to ensure every police officer and member of police staff can be themselves and give of their best, the public sector equality duty is essential. Yesterday, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Mark Rowley, told the London Policing Board that he was committed to continuing the work of the UK’s largest police force on diversity, equality and inclusion. If noble Lords will not take my word for how important the public sector equality duty is to policing, maybe they will take Sir Mark’s.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, introduced Amendment 402, which proposes that the police should be exempt from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, to ensure that they are
“solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions”.
I still have some difficulty in following the arguments for this amendment; I also raised this in Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord seriously believes that applying the PSED takes away from the police carrying out their duties effectively. In speaking earlier to Amendment 400, my noble friend Lady Doocey mentioned the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the importance of standards, training and inspection: the perfect circle that ensures police forces are working effectively. The PSED is absolutely at the heart of that.
A number of high profile cases have absolutely strengthened the need for the PSED. Indeed, it has been failings in policing that shocked the country, and every report on those incidents has talked about appalling attitudes to vulnerable people. On Monday evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, spoke about the murder of her son Stephen, and how that racist murder might have been stopped if the police had done their job earlier, when the harassment was escalating. Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson report of 1999 was a means of changing the culture in public institutions, not just the police, to ensure that they had due regard to race equality decisions. This was later extended to disability and gender issues.
It was clear in Macpherson’s report then that the police were “institutionally racist” and had a lack of curiosity, in the Lawrence case, about the anti-social behaviour of young white gangs and what they were doing to local Black young people. The whole design of the PSED was to ensure that the police could do their job properly, without fear or favour, and support vulnerable communities. There are many excellent, moral and dedicated police officers who fulfil this every working day. Sadly, it has not always been consistent.
When sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman were murdered in a park in June 2020, the public were appalled by the behaviour of the police. Photographs of the dead girls were taken and shared by police officers: this was racism and misogyny. In that case, more work was needed to change the culture of the Met. When Sarah Everard was murdered in March 2021 by a serving police officer, the country was shocked. The background story about misogyny in the force was equally shocking, as was the fact that, at work, the dreadful behaviour of the murderer had been tolerated and not dealt with. I raise these cases because each of the reports on these incidents keeps returning to the culture that engenders racism and misogyny in certain places in the police.
I have absolutely no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that there is an enormous amount of work going on to change that culture, and in many forces it is working well. But without the PSED there would be no priority to have due regard to race, gender and disability. There would be no yardstick for the police inspectorate to look at and address culture. There would be no clear duty to ensure that staff are trained. Worst of all, it would be all too easy to slip back into the old ways. I am sure that the Conservative Front Bench would not want that to happen. The PSED is an important tool in the armoury of the police to keep us all safe, including those who are both vulnerable and at high risk. Please do not support Amendment 402.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are here again. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to understand why I am not going to change my position. There is a view that, for all the reasons that have been given, equality is extremely important for a public sector body. I did not disagree with a single word that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, and I stand here to say that the public sector equality duty is one that this Government fully support.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is not going to press this amendment to a Division this evening. If he did, I would ask my noble friends to vote against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the police are the public, and they have the confidence of the public. The Peelian principles, on which the police were established all those years ago, are about the police reflecting the public, understanding the public and taking the public into account. The public are made up of people who have disabilities, people who are gay, lesbian and trans, and women who face particular challenges. The public are people who have protected characteristics. We need to understand that.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said in Committee, the question that your Lordships must ask yourselves is what we want the police to prioritise. These Benches have argued that the answer to that question is public safety, crime prevention, and the fair and firm enforcement of the law.
This amendment is aimed at removing a layer of bureaucratic obligation that, in our view, is simply not fit for purpose for operational policing. Effective policing is a public good. The way to ensure that the largest number of people are met with dignity and respect is to ensure that the law is enforced effectively. However, in the light of all contributions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kidron
“Police protocols when investigating the death of a child(1) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 27 (common law rules as to criminal investigations), insert—“27A Inclusion of guidance on collecting digital data when investigating the death of a child(1) Within six months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, the code of practice under section 23 must include protocols that a person must adhere to when investigating the death of a child.(2) These protocols must include the treatment of potential online harm as a primary line of enquiry.(3) In order to treat a potential online harm as a primary line of enquiry, an investigating person must—(a) seize and forensically examine digital devices as soon as is reasonably possible;(b) take all reasonable steps to capture early digital evidence and account data, taking into account that online services delete user data after a short period of inactivity;(c) document a child’s activity on all known online services, including recommended content, interactions with other users, content viewed, content uploaded, and any relevant metadata.(4) Where an investigation gives evidence that a service regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 may have breached the terms of that Act, OFCOM must be notified and supplied with the evidence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to update statutory guidance issued to police to include guidance on effective evidence-collecting related to potential digital harm during an investigation into the death of a child. Currently, there is no statutory guidance for police to follow regarding investigating digital harm.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 404, 405, 431 and 432. In the light of the hour and the spirit of my conversations with the Minister, I will not go through my amendments in detail, nor the very long journey it has been to get here. In short, they concern earlier agreements that, in cases where a child has died, the coroner and the police should be equipped and informed to preserve data from online services.
I thank the Minister, and officials from both the Ministry of Justice and DSIT, for their engagement. Before I put on record some of my concerns, I acknowledge that, for the past few weeks at least, we have been trying to get to the same place on this. I am disappointed that we have not quite found a way to do so, and I hope that the Minister will find a way to reassure me and—possibly more importantly—the bereaved parents who have fought hard for these amendments.
Both my Amendment 404 and government Amendment 429A seek to make it automatic that, on being notified of the death of a child, a coroner issues a data preservation notice which means that a regulated service under the Online Safety Act would have to preserve the data of a child within five days. The Government have agreed to this in principle but wanted to exclude children who die in circumstances such as a road accident or in hospital as a result of illness, to which I have agreed. But, in their effort to exclude those children, they have, in proposed new subsection (1)(b) in their Amendment 429A, allowed the coroner to decide
“that no purpose would be served by OFCOM giving a notice”
under the Act
“because such information is of no relevance to a child’s death”.
That is too broad. Giving permission for a coroner to decide what constitutes “no purpose” is a bit like snakes and ladders: we are back to the problem that has plagued bereaved parents, where coroners underestimate the speed necessary to preserve data, or the scope and importance of information that might be preserved in this way. This is not a criticism of coroners. It is far beyond the experience of professionals, across all domains, to understand the range of online material available or its ethereal nature.
My second issue with the government amendment is that they have chosen to reduce the length of time that data is preserved—the preservation notice—from a year to six months. I discussed this with officials earlier today, and I understand that it is extendable, but both I and Ellen Roome, bereaved mother of Jools, feel that it is not long enough. Some 45% of inquests take longer than six months; 18% take more than a year. Reducing the time is deliberately creating a weakness in the system at a time when parents need support and must not be made anxious by watching the clock running down and worrying whether someone, somewhere in the system, will fail to extend the preservation order.
There is also an ongoing issue with conflicts between our laws and those in the US. I received a letter from Minister Narayan this week updating me about the conflict between Section 101 of the Online Safety Act and the US Stored Communications Act. The letter said:
“Interpretation of the SCA is not settled”,
there may be some variety between different US states, and
“discussions between DSIT, Ofcom and service providers are taking a place to find a path forward”.
This regime depends entirely on resolving this issue. We were promised from the Dispatch Box that this was a priority for DSIT nearly two years ago, when the previous Government were in power. It was not done then and it is still not resolved. The letter did not mention anything about discussions between Government Ministers and their counterparts in the US, upon which this finally depends. I hope that the Minister is not surprised at the level of frustration felt by bereaved parents at the lack of speed with which this issue has been pursued.
The Government have put out a press release and made assurances to bereaved parents, and now we are here at a time of night when no vote can reasonably take place. So I would like the Minister to offer to bring pack tighter wording at Third Reading. I believe it is necessary and what parents are expecting. Even if she is not able to make that commitment tonight, it is what should happen and I ask her to try to make it happen. It has been promised and I believe it must be delivered.
I do not intend to pursue my Amendment 405, but I simply ask the Minister to put on the record how the police will be better informed of this regime. I finish by paying tribute all the bereaved families who have campaigned for this change—Jools’ law—and the amendments that preceded it. We in this House are witness to your pain and your generosity in campaigning so that others do not suffer as you have.
I wish to remind the Government of what one father said the day before Committee: “I was happy with the meeting with Liz Kendall until I realised it was the exact same meeting I had with Peter Kyle the year before. Nothing had changed except the size of the room to accommodate the increased number of bereaved parents”. There is a crisis unfolding that the Government are not grasping. Sorting out this amendment is not enough, but it must be done. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this vital group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, concerning the investigation of child deaths, to which I have been very pleased to add my name. We all absolutely acknowledge that the noble Baroness has been tireless in her campaign and her support for the bereaved parents, and she is no less eloquent or persuasive even at this time of night.
The chink of light provided by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in Committee and the movement represented by government Amendments 429A and 454A are very welcome. However, on these Benches, like the noble Baroness we question whether they are as comprehensive as the solutions proposed in her amendments. The government amendments are substantive concessions regarding the principle of automatic data preservation, but they fall short of the immediate statutory certainty and the proactive coronial and police duties sought by the noble Baroness to ensure a comprehensive investigation into digital harms. So, while I welcome in principle the Government’s agreement to make DPNs automatic, their current drafting often leans on secondary legislation and future consultations. These amendments place the duty firmly in the Bill, providing the immediate legal certainty that bereaved families deserve in 2026.
Perhaps the most critical missing piece in the Government’s current approach is addressed by Amendment 404, which requires the police to investigate digital harm as a primary line of inquiry as a matter of routine. We cannot treat the digital environment as secondary to the physical. If a child is found harmed in a public park, the police do not wait for a consultation to decide whether to check the CCTV, yet when a child dies in circumstances which may involve social media, digital forensics are often treated as an afterthought or a secondary consideration. So the noble Baroness’s additional amendments should not be controversial. They should be accepted, fast-tracked and robustly enforced, and I urge the Minister to take them on board today.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too will speak very briefly, given the hour. I was also pleased to add my name to Amendment 431. For the benefit of Hansard, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to Amendment 404—but I think she was talking about Amendment 431. Anyway, I am going to try to talk about Amendment 431. I agree with everything the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks.
I too will focus on subsection (4)(i) of the new clause proposed by the Government’s Amendment 429A, which reduces the time for which data would be preserved, from 12 to six months. I have been given to understand that part of the reason for that is because of the ECHR and the need to respect the privacy of those concerned, but it leaves bereaved parents in an unsatisfactory situation, and I wondered why the Government did it this way round and why there could not be a mechanism for automatically deleting any data the minute the inquest was completed and the data was no longer needed, rather than putting pressure on coroners to have to extend, and apply for an extension of, the notices. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House at this hour. I thank the Minister for the progress the Government have made on this since we spoke about it in Committee—it really is a step forward. However, like other noble Lords, I urge the Minister to just go a little bit further, and, if she could possibly address the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that would be fantastic. I hope she will have good news for us when she stands up.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by placing on record my gratitude to all the noble Lords who have led the campaign on this important issue, none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has so ably championed this cause. I think it self-evident that we all acknowledge the harms that phones and social media are doing to our youth. I speak as a father of teenage children who are grappling with these very issues day to day.
This is most tragically brought to the fore when phones and social media lead to the death of children. Parents who face this unimaginable tragedy should be able to know what their child was accessing, and the evidence from these awful incidents should prove to the general public that steps have to be taken. I see no argument for why the police should not be required to collect evidence relating to potential digital harm, as indeed they are required to do for general causes of death. Similarly, if social media has in part led to the death of a child, the bare minimum that providers should do is to retain the data relating to the victim.
I too express gratitude to the Minister for considering the arguments raised in Committee and acting upon this. I understand that many in your Lordships’ House believe that Amendment 429A does not go far enough and that it does not place the desired duties on police forces. However, I welcome at least the start that this represents.
There is a tension, I fear, between what the Government are doing in your Lordships’ House—rightly, making concessions on the issue—and, at the same time, in the other place voting against further protections from online harms. The Minister’s amendment today places duties on providers. It is a short step from mandating data retention to enforcing age limits. This is not the time for that debate in its entirety, but it is worth putting it on the record. I reiterate my gratitude to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have campaigned on this important matter.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government remain grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to the bereaved families who have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the existing framework for the preservation of online material that may be relevant to understanding a child’s death. I reiterate what I said in Committee: the loss of any child is a profound tragedy, and the Government are clear that we must take every possible step to safeguard children online.
I pay tribute to all the campaigners on this issue. Of course, I would be delighted to see Ellen Roome. I had the opportunity to meet her briefly; she was introduced to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, outside the Chamber. It would be good to organise something formally and to include the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Barran. I will do what I can to find out what is happening with the inquest. Obviously, I cannot commit my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to anything, but I will do what I can to find out what is happening.
I promised in Committee that the Government would consider how that framework could be amended to ensure that data preservation is applied consistently and as quickly as possible. We have done that: we listened and we have acted. I am delighted today to bring forward government Amendments 429A, 454A and 467AB, which require speedy data preservation in every case involving the death of a child aged five or above. The only exceptions to that will be where the child’s online activity is clearly irrelevant to their death or an investigation is plainly not necessary.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her constructive engagement on the development of this provision. Our most recent meeting was this afternoon, where we did our best to move things forward; I will return to that in a moment. As I have emphasised to her, the Government’s firm intention is that a DPN request becomes the default and should be made in every case, unless the coroner is very clear from the outset that online data is not relevant to a child’s death. We will ensure that this expectation is clearly set out in the Explanatory Notes to the new provision. I will write to the Chief Coroner, asking her to consider issuing guidance for coroners on the application of the mandatory requirement and, crucially, the circumstances in which an exception may be appropriate.
The Government thought we had done enough and that we had done what was wanted of us, because we all agreed with the objectives. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has reservations, and I understand them. I hope that we can continue to discuss this, so that we can reach a position where everybody is happy that we are doing what we have set out to do.
On the time limit, this now mandatory policy will entail the preservation of a much greater volume of data, including that of third parties, than at present. As it preserves the data relating to the dead child, it will also sweep up those on the other end of the interaction—the third parties are the issue here. To ensure that it is proportionate, we are therefore reducing the initial retention period—not the overall retention period—to six months, which, in the majority of cases, should provide sufficient time for the coroner to decide whether the online evidence is relevant. It is not related to when the inquest takes place, because the coroners all start working on this long before the inquest actually opens. It is simply putting it in place so that they have time to make the decision. There is a provision to extend it. The coroner does not have to apply to extend it; it is much simpler than that—they simply have to decide to extend it. Therefore, more time can be secured by the coroner if it is not yet clear.
We will work with the Chief Coroner and operational partners to ensure that coroners are clear that a positive decision is needed at the six-month point on whether or not to extend a DPN. If there is any doubt, the default position should be to extend the DPN to ensure that the data is preserved until the inquest.
These amendments will make a minor change to the existing regulation-making power in Section 101 of the Online Safety Act, so that regulations setting out the kinds of services that will automatically receive a DPN can refer to ongoing research. That means they will remain current and will capture any new and emerging services that become popular with children.
Amendments 431 and 432, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would, as we are all aware, basically give effect to the same issue as the government amendments, but they include preserving data where online activity is not relevant to a child’s death. The reason for the difference is that the government amendments carve this out to reduce delay and diverting resources away from relevant cases. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s Amendments 431 and 432, as they would require a disproportionate retention of third-party data, which would risk breaching Article 8.
Finally, on Amendment 404 and the consequential Amendment 405, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we agree that it is essential that the police both understand the powers available to them and can use those powers consistently to access all relevant information when investigating these cases, including digital material or content held on social media platforms. As the noble Baroness knows, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is developing guidance to improve awareness and to promote uniform use of these powers, and the Home Office is committed to working with the police on this issue.
I know how concerned your Lordships’ House is about the pace of change in some of these newer technologies. That is exactly why, for guidance to remain practical and effective, it must be able to evolve alongside the fast-changing technological developments and legal frameworks. That is why it is preferable not to set this guidance or its detail in primary legislation but instead to continue working with the police to ensure that this guidance is delivered soon and to a high standard.
For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments. I thank her again and thank all other noble Lords who have spoken for their collaboration and engagement on this important issue.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have supported this, not just tonight but on previous occasions, and I thank the Minister. Earlier this afternoon, we were looking for the perfect words. When she stood up, she said “clearly irrelevant” to the death of a child, and that would have been the perfect phrase to have in the Bill. I say it on the record. Maybe she can come back with a surprise at Third Reading.
I very much appreciate the work of the department and where the Government have met us, and I accept the point about the police. I say for one final time that, unfortunately, we have been round this three times. If this does not work, we will be back again with fury. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Police covenant: mandatory reporting on suicide and attempted suicide(1) The Secretary of State must ensure the collection and publication of data on suicide and attempted suicide among police officers and police staff for the purposes of supporting mental health and wellbeing under the police covenant (see section 1 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).(2) Each police force in England and Wales must collect and submit annually to the Secretary of State—(a) the number of confirmed suicides by serving police officers and police staff;(b) the number of attempted suicides by serving police officers and police staff; (c) contextual information, where reasonably available, including duty status, length of service, role, rank, known occupational stressors, and access to mental health support.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, lay a report before Parliament (to be known as the “Police Covenant Mental Health Report”) which must include, but is not limited to—(a) national and force-level data trends,(b) analysis of occupational contributory factors,(c) assessment of the adequacy, usage and evidence-based outcomes of mental health and suicide prevention provisions under the police covenant,(d) recommendations to address identified risks, and(e) a statement from the Chief Medical Officer for England.(4) The report under subsection (3) must—(a) be published and disseminated to all police personnel;(b) include commentary from the College of Policing on compliance, data quality and best practice at force level;(c) include contributions from staff representative bodies and trade unions.(5) Anonymised data, disaggregated by force area, must be published, subject to data protection and safeguarding.(6) Each Chief Constable must, at the end of every calendar year, provide a statement to the Secretary of State certifying that the requirements under this section have been met by their police force.(7) Where a Chief Constable fails to provide a certification under subsection (6) without reasonable excuse, the Secretary of State must notify HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.(8) The Inspectorate must have regard to a notification under subsection (7) in the course of its inspection of that police force under the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) programme.(9) The Secretary of State must establish an independent advisory board, to be known as the “Police Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Advisory Board”.(10) The Board must consist of persons with expertise in clinical care, occupational health, staff representation and academic research.(11) The functions of the Board are to—(a) advise the Secretary of State on guidance relating to suicide prevention and mental health in the police workforce,(b) set standards for the collection and reporting of relevant data, and(c) review and make recommendations on force-level responses to risks identified through data and inspections.(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of the Police Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Advisory Board, including provision about—(a) the Board’s procedures,(b) its terms of reference, and(c) its reporting duties.(13) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) data collection standards,(b) statutory guidance,(c) audit mechanisms, and(d) such further oversight as may be considered necessary. (14) In this section, “police officer” and “police staff” have the same meanings as in section 1 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, before I go into detail on Amendment 408, I thank the Police Federation of England and Wales for its tireless work on this issue.
If we are serious about the police covenant then we must be serious about the well-being of those who serve. We cannot claim to support officers and staff while failing even to measure properly the most tragic outcomes of poor mental health. The amendment is rooted in a simple principle: what is measured is what is acted upon. At present, the collection of data on suicides and attempted suicides in policing is too inconsistent and too limited. Without clear national data, patterns are missed, warning signs are overlooked and opportunities to save lives are lost.
The amendment would require proper annual reporting to Parliament, force-by-force data and analysis of occupational stress points. This matters because policing places extraordinary pressures on people—trauma, long hours, operational strain and repeated exposure to distress. We need evidence-based data, not just warm words.
The amendment would strengthen accountability. Chief constables would have to certify compliance. HMICFRS would be alerted where forces fell short. An independent advisory board would help to drive best practice. This is not just about getting figures and gathering data; it is about making sure that those figures are acted upon.
Behind every statistic is a human being—an officer, a staff member, a family member or a team member left grieving and asking whether more could have been done. This amendment would help us understand the scale of the problem, improve prevention and honour the spirit of the police covenant by protecting those who protect us. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, both the amendments in this group highlight a serious issue in policing. Many officers and staff are under extreme strain and we are not systematically measuring the scale of the problem. We support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for the mandatory recording and reporting of suicides and serious suicide attempts, a proposal backed by the Police Federation. Whether through his amendment or Amendment 409, it is important that we act now to bring this problem into clear view so that we can assess the risks and protect officers’ welfare, as we would with any other occupational hazard. It is therefore necessary to place a legal duty on forces and the Home Office to record these incidents and publish the figures so that appropriate support and interventions can be designed, and responsibility for preventable loss of life can be properly examined.
The police service rightly places emphasis on officer well-being, but these amendments would take a further step by increasing transparency so that we can understand what is happening to those who carry some of society’s heaviest psychological demands. Police officers are often the first to assist people in mental health crisis, but we must ensure that their own welfare is addressed. As my noble friend Lady Brinton observed in Committee, policing has often relied on signposting staff to external organisations rather than building internal support that is tailored to their needs.
First, however, we must remedy the lack of consistent data across forces. A unified system for collecting and publishing a mental health matrix would allow targeted evidence-based support that is timely and preventive. I hope that, in this instance, the Minister will recognise the importance of a clear duty to measure and report these outcomes as the basis for any serious strategy on officer well-being.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important issue of mental health and well-being for those serving in police forces. Amendment 408, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey, and Amendment 409, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seek to improve the collection and publication of data relating to suicide and attempted suicide among police officers and police staff.
The intention behind them is clear. If we are serious about supporting the well-being of those who serve in policing, we must first ensure that we properly understand the scale and nature of the challenges that they face. Policing is a profession that places extraordinary demands on those who undertake it. Officers and staff routinely encounter traumatic incidents and cumulative stress that comes from protecting the public in difficult circumstances, and I can personally vouch for that. While the vast majority serve with resilience and dedication, it is clear that these pressures can have a profound effect on mental health.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Bailey spoke movingly about the importance of ensuring that the police covenant is underpinned by robust evidence. Without reliable national data, it is difficult to identify patterns, understand risk factors or evaluate whether the support structures currently in place are working as intended. The same point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who emphasised that better data is essential if we are to design effective prevention strategies.
There is already recognition across policing on the need to strengthen the evidence base in this area, and work is under way through national policing bodies to improve the collection of welfare data. However, the amendments before the House highlight the importance of ensuring that this work is transparent and capable of informing meaningful action. Ultimately, the police covenant reflects our collective commitment to those who protect the public. Ensuring that we understand and address the mental health risks faced by officers and staff is central to that commitment.
For those reasons, this group of amendments raises issues to which the Government should give careful consideration. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling the amendments in this group. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported the amendment’s general direction of travel.
First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that suicide and attempted suicide in the police workforce have devastating consequences. I and the Government recognise fully the need to address mental health and well-being in policing seriously and responsibly. As the noble Lord will know, the National Police Wellbeing Service already does vital work in tackling suicide risks to the police workforce, including work on prevention, postvention support for forces, a 24/7 mental health crisis line for anyone working in policing, and specialist trauma services.
I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has framed his amendment and brought it forward. However, I say to him respectfully that placing an additional statutory reporting duty in primary legislation is not, I feel, the right approach at this time. I say this for three broad reasons. First, much of the information sought by the amendments, particularly in relation to attempted suicide, is often clinical, confidential, medical data. In many cases, it cannot be lawfully or ethically shared with employers, so mandating this through primary legislation would be the wrong approach and would risk unintended consequences around confidentiality, trust and data integrity. In my view, that is a significant blockage in the amendment to date.
Secondly, I reassure the noble Lord that the absence of legislation does not mean the absence of action. This is a really important point. Police forces already collect data on deaths by suicide, and there is national co-ordination of that data. The challenge is not in getting forces to comply; it is in what we ask for from forces, how it is defined and, most importantly, how it is used to drive meaningful prevention. Again, I look forward to the future and looking at a revised national police service downstream, following the White Paper, where training, well-being and personnel functions are brought into the centre and where there is a smaller number of police forces on the ground. There will be a real focus on this, and I know it is important to do that.
Thirdly, I do not want to be locked into a rigid framework before necessary clinical, operational and ethical questions have been resolved. This is not simply a matter of reporting; it also requires high-quality support. In particular, as I think the noble Lord will accept, it demands a culture that understands that mental health challenges are there in police forces. Police officers see some horrendous things on the ground. They have really hard experiences and are very often traumatised. It is important that we embed in the culture of the police force how we respond to those issues. It is not simply about collecting statistics. I know that that is the noble Lord’s prime motivation but, ultimately, it should be about having an automatic, embedded culture that recognises the stresses and strains, helps identify them and puts in place measures to help people with their mental health.
That is why the Government are focusing their efforts on strengthening well-being support, trauma care and early intervention in the police White Paper, and also why my colleague, the Minister directly responsible for policing and crime, has engaged with police leaders, staff associations and experts to look at how we can improve the quality of the data and, more importantly, the quality of preventive action. As it happens, I had a useful discussion with the Police Federation at my party conference in Liverpool in October last year. We understand that there is a real issue to help support, but I do not believe that the amendments before the House on Report today would be the right solution at this stage.
With this recognition of the problem and a grateful Minister who says to the noble Lord, “Thank you for bringing this issue forward”, I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and for the nature of his response. I truly believe that the Government are beginning to focus on this long-lasting issue. My slight pushback and challenge are around the embedding of a culture. The organisation is so big and so diverse in its approach to this problem. Many forces do not collect the figures and certainly could not provide them when asked by the Police Federation. We need to ask them officially because, as was said, we need to embed that culture. By asking for those figures, we build a mechanism that embeds that culture.
However, in view of the Minister’s very generous approach to this subject, and my belief that the Government truly are beginning to focus on this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
Policing: devolution to Wales(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section B5 (crime, public order and policing)—(a) omit “and policing”, and(b) omit line 41 “policing”.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to devolve policing to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, my Amendments 409A and 409B concern the devolution of policing and youth justice to Wales. These are the same amendments that I tabled in Committee. I will keep my remarks brief, considering the late hour, but I hope that the Minister can provide further clarity, because the questions raised in Committee remain unanswered.
Not long after Committee, the police reform White Paper was published. There are some good things in it, particularly the focus on neighbourhood policing, but it does not address the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations. At that time, the Minister stated that the White Paper’s proposals for Wales concern organisation rather than devolution and that devolving policing is not right for Wales at this time. However, I say respectfully that, if we are reorganising the whole system, this would seem to be precisely the moment to align responsibility with accountability through devolution.
The abolition of PCCs fundamentally reshapes the governance of policing. In England, functions will move to mayoral authorities, yet Wales has no equivalent structures. It is logical that the Welsh Government should be part of the answer, whatever that answer is, to the newly created gap. Yet we still do not know what model the Government envisage for Welsh police governance, whether devolution of policing even remains under consideration, despite consistent recommendations from independent commissions, or how Welsh financial contributions, already substantial, will be recognised. In 2024-25, only around 43% of policing expenditure in Wales came from the UK Government. The remainder came from Welsh government contributions and council tax. This remains a reserved matter in which the UK Government retain that decision-making power, yet Welsh citizens already fund most of their policing.
On youth justice, I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that work is under way on the manifesto commitment that they have themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, noted in Committee, Wales’s child-first approach has helped to drive
“a sharp and sustained decline in first-time entrants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/26; col. 466.]
over many years. He also highlighted that children in conflict with the law often have “overlapping needs” and that the “jagged edge” of the current settlement can impede the joined-up support that those children require.
Crucially, many of us have argued that youth justice is a contained, high-impact area where devolution would be feasible and important, demonstrating new intergovernmental respect and co-operation. The Minister has previously referred to a programme of work in relation to youth justice. Today, I would like to find out more on the progress of this: what its scope is, when conclusions will be reached and, if legislative change is anticipated, through which vehicle and on what timetable. Without this detail, Parliament cannot scrutinise the direction of travel. Scotland and Northern Ireland have full responsibility for policing and justice. Wales remains the outlier.
I am not asking the House to decide on these matters today; I am asking the Government to provide the clarity that Wales deserves. When will proposals on Welsh police governance be published, what is the timetable for decisions on youth justice devolution, and how will accountability be secured for systems largely funded in Wales but not yet controlled in Wales? I look forward to the Minister’s response at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
When we had a debate in Committee, Wales was squeezed into the very short time we had on the Thursday afternoon before a debate had to start. It is no one’s fault but Wales is being squeezed again. It is now 11.30 pm and this is serious—it is no-one’s fault, and I am not blaming anyone; it is the way the cookie has crumbled. It seems to me that what we want is a proper debate. On the previous occasion, in inviting the noble Baroness to bring her amendments back, the Minister promised a fuller debate. At this hour of night, I do not really think that is sensible, but I will say two things.
First, as the parliamentary process seems to produce no proper forum for the discussion of these serious issues, and the Minister said he had very serious arguments to support the non-devolution of policing, will he agree to have a proper meeting about these things so that we can look at how policing has operated in Scotland and Northern Ireland to the benefit of those two nations, and how it could benefit Wales? Secondly, why is Wales treated as though justice were an island removed from Wales? Justice is not an island; it is an integral part of policy. Separating out areas of justice from the rest of internal affairs is almost, I think, unique across the world to Wales as a self-governing nation.
On the two particular matters, I do not want to add much about policing, but I want to say a word about youth justice. Since the debate in Committee, the Government have published A Modern Youth Justice System: Foundations Fit for The Future. If I may say so, with genuine respect—I put that in because, sometimes, it is said of lawyers that, when they say “with respect”, they mean without any respect at all, but I mean this with genuine respect—the foreword written by the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Minister for Justice presents an irrefutable argument for the way in which youth justice must be properly aligned with other services.
What is fascinating about that paper, however, is that there is not a single word about what is to happen to youth justice in Wales. There are excellent arguments as to what is to happen in England. Had we had a debate at a sensible hour, I was going to weary your Lordships, I hope not unduly, by looking at the arguments so powerfully made by the Deputy Prime Minister. This is not the time to embark on that argument: I would weary noble Lords unduly at this hour of night. In the first debate on Report, however, the Minister rightly emphasised how important it was that the Government stuck to their manifesto commitments when emphasising why we had to have a respect order. In the face of a powerful argument that did not add anything to what we already said, he said that it was a manifesto commitment. I therefore hope he will be able to explain the manifesto commitment to look at youth justice and its devolution, and say what is to be done.
I found it very disappointing listening to the evidence of one of the Welsh Ministers, Mr Irranca-Davies, of the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, when he was asked repeatedly about youth justice. He said that discussions were going on and they were working hard, but he could not say anything of any detail and hoped that they would be able to do something soon.
I very much hope for two things. First, I hope that the Minister and those who take a different view can have the opportunity for a robust argument, so that we can see what each side says. The report of the Silk commission, the report of the commission that I chaired, and the report of Rowan Williams and Laura McAllister’s commission all argued for the devolution of both these things, and no one has ever presented an argument as to why they are wrong. It seems to me that a robust discussion would be the best way forward.
I also hope that the Minister is able to explain tonight how the Government intend to honour the manifesto commitment and how the powerful logic of the Deputy Prime Minister’s arguments can be applied not merely to England—although I accept here, of course, that it is most important that they apply to England—but how they are to be applied to Wales.
Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that when I was First Minister of Wales, I strongly supported the devolution of policing, and my position has not changed. I fail to see why Wales alone, of the four nations of the UK, should not have the powers to shape policing and policing priorities.
I have heard arguments about crime being cross-border. Well, that is true of England and Scotland as well, and indeed of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for that matter. Simple co-operation between police forces is a way of overcoming that. I saw that in 2013 when we had the NATO summit in Newport. Police officers from all over the UK had come to help police that event.
The Minister will, I am sure, be relieved to know that I am not looking for him to agree with me tonight. I know the view of the UK Government that, currently, policing should not be devolved in Wales. Nevertheless, we now have a lack of clarity as to the future, because with the abolition of the PCCs, the suggestions that have been made about how policing will be made accountable in the future are based on English political structures that do not exist in Wales. We do not yet know what will happen in Wales. That is important because there are, of course, arguments that we have to make to ensure that Wales is properly recognised. Wales has its own civil contingency forum, language, laws and ways of policing that must be reflected in the future. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that a way must be found to take this forward? Will he agree to meet me, and perhaps others, to see how we can deliver better policing that nevertheless reflects Wales’s national distinctiveness?
I turn very briefly to Amendment 409B, in which I have a personal interest. This was a recommendation that came from the Brown commission, of which I was a part. Naturally, I fully support the devolution of youth justice. I was delighted to see this included in the manifesto that the Government were elected on in 2024 and I look forward to its delivery.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, when my noble friend was the First Minister, and slightly before that, when I was the Secretary of State, I was less of a campaigner for this issue than he was. But I recognise that times have changed over the last few years. I am told that devolution is a process rather than an event—something that I have witnessed myself over the last 20-odd years that I have been involved in Welsh politics at a ministerial level. But two or three things have occurred literally within the last year or so that mean we have to bend our minds to something that I was not all that keen on all those years ago.
First, as my noble friend said, the Labour Party manifesto indicated that youth justice and probation were now to be matters for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Senedd. Like my noble friend, I was a member of Gordon Brown’s commission, and that was something we all agreed on. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response on those specific issues, which we must not forget.
On the issue of policing generally and its devolution, the view over a number of years was that it was quite hard to devolve policing without devolving criminal justice. The noble Baroness referred to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland historically has had both over many centuries. Northern Ireland has not—it did and then it did not after the collapse of the first Stormont arrangement. Indeed, when I was Northern Ireland Secretary, I held responsibility for criminal justice and for policing until the Good Friday agreement made the difference by recommending that both those issues should eventually be devolved to Northern Ireland, which they have been, and very successfully too.
Two things have occurred over the last few weeks. First, my noble friend the Minister came to the Chamber and told us that police and crime commissioners were to be abolished. I do not think that that was in the manifesto, but I entirely concur with it. However, if we are to abolish police and crime commissioners, the responsibility for accountability has to lie with somebody. In England, there are mayors and the new organisations which will follow the devolution Bill, but in Wales there are no such institutions. There are no mayors and no local authorities which currently have a responsibility for policing. We have to find out what happens in Wales when that Bill goes through. That makes us think more about general police devolution.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now decided in the White Paper on policing that there will be far fewer police authorities and police boards in England. What happens then? Will the current four police forces in Wales be abolished? Will we have two or one for the whole of Wales? I do not know but obviously there will be a change if the White Paper affects Wales as much as England.
Those two issues mean that we have to bend our minds to what we do about policing in the months ahead. Those months ahead will inevitably be complicated by the fact that in 60 days’ time there will be an election in Wales, the outcome of which none of us knows but it will undoubtedly be something we have to deal with in a rather different way from how we have over the past 100 years.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, given the hour, my contribution to this debate will be a short one.
I first apologise for not having spoken to similar amendments on this subject in Committee because of illness. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Brinton, who is no longer in her place, for taking my place on that occasion. My thanks go also to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for bringing the amendments in this group back for debate on Report.
On these Benches we agree with both Amendment 409A on the devolution of policing and Amendment 409B on the devolution of youth justice. They are in line with both Welsh Liberal Democrat and our federal Liberal Democrat policies. Had this debate taken place at an earlier hour, we would have joined the noble Baroness in the voting Lobby.
I will speak very briefly on youth justice, which was seen as an early candidate for phased devolution. The Welsh Government have been able to influence youth justice policy through devolved areas such as education, health and social services, and have established a youth justice system that prioritises prevention, rehabilitation and the rights of children over punitive measures.
According to a Senedd research document published in January this year,
“The Welsh Government has said that it has agreed with the UK Government for officials in both governments to work together to ‘explore options’ where responsibilities in the youth justice system could be ‘realigned’”,
as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to. What progress has been made there?
But despite that and other affirmative statements, the Senedd Equality and Social Justice Committee warned last year that
“the UK Government could row back its promises on the devolution of youth justice … in Wales”
Disappointingly, experience is showing us that this is what appears to be happening.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for bringing forward Amendments 409A and 409B, which raise the question of devolving policing and youth justice to Wales. As discussed in Committee, these amendments engage an important constitutional issue about the structure of the devolution settlement. It was argued that devolving these responsibilities could allow them to sit alongside other public services already devolved to the Welsh Government, such as education and health.
However, as was also noted, these matters currently form part of a single legal jurisdiction covering England and Wales. Policing and youth justice operate within that shared framework which supports co-operation between forces and national capability across the system. Changes of the scale proposed here would represent a significant constitutional shift. A matter of such importance cannot properly be considered through two amendments to an ever-growing policing Bill. Indeed, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: he is absolutely right that this certainly requires more time. It would require a broader, more fundamental discussion about the future structure of the devolution settlement which, in respect of policing, we on this side, I am afraid, would resist. I look forward to the noble Lord’s remarks.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for returning to the issue on Report. We find ourselves in a very strange situation today where the noble Baroness who moved the amendment resides in Wales, the shadow Minister was a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales, and the Government Minister is a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales. We are having a bit of a Welsh fest today where every Member who spoke also resides in Wales. I apologise to my noble friends for keeping them here on this Welsh discussion. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I regret it being this late in the evening. It is slightly out of my control because of the way in which the debates have fallen.
As has been seen in the debate, there are a number of different views and within Wales there are a number of different views on this matter. The Government are still of the view, and the position remains clear, that policing operates effectively within a single integrated England and Wales criminal justice system, and it is really important that we examine that.
As my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Jones of Penybont mentioned, there is a lot going on in the policing world at the moment, not just in Wales but in England. There will be legislation to abolish police and crime commissioners and an examination of the model for their replacement. As has been said, that model will include the mayoral model in England but also a local authority model. We have given a very strong commitment that the structures in Wales will be a matter for discussion in the review that is being undertaken, pending the legislation that will come before this House, when parliamentary time allows, to abolish police and crime commissioners.
A review of the number of police forces, currently 43, will be undertaken in the next few months and completed in the summer. There will be significant engagement with the Senedd, Welsh police forces, current police and crime commissioners, Welsh Members of Parliament and anyone else who wishes to have a view on what the format should be in relation to any revised structure in Wales. Self-evidently, there are a number of options: the existing four police forces; a smaller number of police forces; a single police force; and the different types of governance structure that could be put in place. That will be part of the discussion that is undertaken.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am following what the Minister is saying with great interest because it responds to the numerous points that have been made about the reorganisation that is needed to make sure there is no vacuum. The point I would press is that we have an election for the Senedd coming up in May. Trying to get a coherent discussion, debate and conclusion at this point becomes extremely awkward. It would be good if it could be started immediately, before we find ourselves in the middle of an election, with the intention of bringing everybody on board very rapidly afterwards. The Minister will understand the challenges.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I fully do. The review that is being undertaken of force sizes throughout the whole of England and Wales will commence very shortly. The terms of reference, if they are not public already, will be very shortly. The input of the Senedd, the political parties, the current Administration and, potentially, an Opposition Administration in the Senedd is absolutely valid for that discussion. At the end of that period, we want to try to have an understanding of the preferred models through negotiation and discussion on issues such as force size and governance. That is really important because there has to be legislation at some point to abolish police and crime commissioners. In doing that, there will be opportunities to discuss force size and governance accordingly.
I would like to take up the suggestion of a meeting made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am very happy to meet any colleagues who have spoken today. It may be more appropriate that we do that either with the review team for force size and current structures or directly with the Police Minister, but I will reflect on that request and get back to the noble and learned Lord at a sensible hour to determine how we undertake that.
I understand the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—another resident of Wales speaking, in effect, from the Front Bench, in this case on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I have set down the principle: the Government do not believe that this reorganisation is about devolution. We have different views on that, but that is the principle of where we are. There are issues still to look at, such as force size and governance, that are for discussion to get the best deal for Wales and avoid, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, causing any interregnum in service. I plan to meet some new police officers in Wales shortly, and I will be engaged as someone who has an interest in the matter for this House.
The system currently provides operational resilience, shared capability and strong cross-border co-operation. We do not believe that fragmenting it would improve outcomes for victims or communities. That is the Government’s position. There is an honest disagreement here, but there are still issues that need to be resolved.
On the issue of youth justice, which was mentioned in the debate, it is true that the Ministry of Justice is working constructively with the Welsh Government on delivery and oversight arrangements. The manifesto committed to considering the devolution of youth justice and that work is under way. Consideration does not equate to immediate legislative change, which is why I cannot accept it in the Bill today. No decision has been taken to devolve youth justice through this Bill, but that work is under way. It is a complex issue, and we want to get the best outcomes, but that is the position. I hope the noble Baroness can accept that in the context that I put to her today.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
In looking ahead to a future legislative vehicle for progressing the devolution of youth justice, does the Minister have a specific timeline in mind and what stage of the programme have the Government got to?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness a timeline or a commentary on that discussion, but what I can say, as I have said already, is that work is under way. This Government were elected for a five-year Parliament and work is under way—that is what I can say today. She will undoubtedly test us again, as there will be opportunities for questions and debates, and there will be legislative scrutiny whenever any legislation is brought forward on the question of police and crime commissioners. However, today, with the principled position the Government have taken, I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments on devolution or on youth justice. As I have said to her and other interested Members, a process is under way on the question of the structures and governance in Wales, which anybody can contribute to in the next few months. The work under way on the justice issue is being dealt with by my colleagues in the MoJ and by the Senedd.
Whatever happens in the election, there will be a Welsh Government of some form, though I do not know what that will be. We are discussing this with the Welsh Government now and we will discuss this with the Welsh Government afterwards. As the Minister responsible for devolution in the Home Office, I have regular meetings with counterpart Ministers in Wales on those issues, as do my policing colleagues. I hope that, with those reassurances at this late hour, the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for his answers and all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. What is most important from what we have gathered this evening is to ensure that, whatever arrangement is decided going forward, it is decided not just in England for how it can benefit and work for police forces in England but that there is particular engagement in Wales.
The Minister mentioned engagement with the Senedd and police forces in Wales, but making sure that it is genuine engagement, and that they can design what the system looks like for the benefit of Wales and not have just another version of what will happen in England, is important. I think that all of us who took part in this debate would welcome further discussion to find out more about the next steps. I am sure we will have further discussions about this, but today I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Police enforcement data(1) Police forces in England and Wales must publish annual data on the enforcement of the following offences—(a) shoplifting,(b) offences involving a blade,(c) phone theft,(d) fare dodging on public transport, and(e) offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.(2) In this section, “enforcement” means the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for a prosecution.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
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.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. With the finishing post in sight, I will be extremely brief.
These amendments correctly identify a crisis at the heart of our police service. There is a consensus that our police are currently drowning in a sea of unnecessary paperwork, and my noble friend Lady Doocey’s policy paper, Policing Fit for the Future, makes the case with devastating clarity. It records the testimony of chief constables, who warn that low morale and heavy workloads are being compounded by
“archaic IT systems—some over 50 years old”
that force highly trained officers to spend more time as data entry clerks than as crime fighters. The Government’s own White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing, acknowledges this failure. It rightly sets out a mission to “strip away the barriers” that prevent officers focusing on the public’s priorities. We on these Benches welcome the ambition to automate manual processes and deliver millions of hours back to the front line.
I am not going to go into detail on the amendments, but we cannot support them as drafted. They risk micromanaging the police through the statute book and could become relics of a different era within a few short years. However, I urge the Minister to take the spirit of these proposals to heart and ensure that they are reflected in the new national policing model.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward this group of amendments. Together, they address a theme that will be familiar to many across the House: the need to ensure that police officers are able to focus their time on policing rather than bureaucracy.
Amendment 409D concerns the publication of enforcement data for a number of offences that have become a source of considerable public concern, including shoplifting, offences involving blades, phone theft and fare evasion. We lend our strong support to the amendment. Greater transparency around enforcement activity can only help to strengthen public confidence and provide a clearer picture of how policing resources are being deployed.
Amendment 409E addresses the volume of paperwork that officers are required to complete. In Committee, it was rightly observed that administrative burdens can too often draw officers away from the front line. A review of the scale of those requirements and how they might be simplified would therefore be a sensible and constructive step.
Finally, Amendment 409F raises the question of data sharing and the efficiency of the systems that underpin case preparation and charging decisions. As many noble Lords will know, delays and inefficiencies in the exchange of information between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can slow down the progress of cases and place additional strain on already stretched resources.
There is a significant amount of work that goes into the redaction of police documents before they are sent to the CPS, often for the documents simply to be sent back because they are overredacted. Furthermore, many of the cases the police redact may not end up being prosecuted. It is clear that this is a significant waste of police time and money, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right: it would make more sense for the CPS to take charge of the redaction of documents that may enter the public domain, given that it would have a far smaller number of documents to trawl through.
Taken together, these amendments all speak to a wider objective: ensuring that the system surrounding policing work is as efficient as possible, allowing officers to focus on preventing crime, catching offenders and protecting the public. The police should be spending as much time on the front line as possible, rather than being encumbered by unnecessary paperwork. I hope that the Minister will give them careful consideration and, as always, I look forward to his response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for returning to these issues, which were thoroughly debated in Committee, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this short but nevertheless important debate. I know that the noble Baroness takes a keen interest in improving how police handle data and utilise their resources effectively. We share that objective and appreciate her constructive contribution to that discussion.
On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409D, as announced in our police reform White Paper, the Government will introduce a police performance dashboard this year, which will allow chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse transparent and operationally significant data. This will allow forces to understand where they are performing well and where they can improve. The Home Office and the Office for National Statistics already publish extensive data, of course, on police-recorded knife crime, shoplifting and theft, and the outcomes assigned to these crimes. The published outcome data provides detailed information on what happened after a crime was recorded by the police, such as where a result is a charge or summons, out-of-court disposal, et cetera. Essentially, it links crimes to their investigative and judicial results, giving insight into how offences progress through the criminal justice system. Additional data is available through police.uk, where members of the public can access monthly crime maps and stop and search statistics. Transport authorities such as Transport for London also publish enforcement data on fare evasion. This is to say that the dashboards are still in development but will build on what we already provide in the public domain.
I know from her contributions to the Bill that the noble Baroness has concerns about how police are enforcing the law particularly around offences involving cyclists and e-scooters. The Home Office has recently established the police performance framework, which provides a strong mechanism for monitoring enforcement activity across all police forces in England and Wales. This framework is flexible and is currently scheduled for review in 2027-28. Mandating which offences the police publish enforcement data on through a fixed list in statute, as her amendment envisions, does not offer the necessary flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, as to how the performance framework operates. In addition, it risks duplicating the work already being undertaken that I have outlined.
Turning to Amendment 409E, the Government have already gained valuable insight into how police time is used, through the 2023 Police Activity Survey, to which the noble Baroness referred. Given the usefulness of the results, the Home Office ran the survey again this year, with fieldwork taking place just last week. We expect to have results in the next few months and will consider how to ensure that they can enable police productivity improvements. From this activity, we expect to gain a detailed profile of how police time is used, as well as insights into productive and non-productive uses of that time. We have sponsored the Centre for Police Productivity in the College of Policing and launched the police efficiency and collaboration programme in 2024 to improve productivity and efficiency across police forces.
Furthermore, our recently published White Paper presents an array of the most significant reforms to policing for nearly 200 years. It outlines our plans to modernise the entire workforce, establish a new performance system to drive improvements in forces, strip out duplication and inefficiency and deliver £354 million of efficiency savings through a police efficiency and collaboration programme. I know that the noble Baroness is keen on efficiency savings, so I hope she welcomes that announcement.
Finally, on Amendment 409F, we support the noble Baroness’s desire to free up officer time by removing administrative burdens such as unnecessary redaction and improve the efficiency of case file preparation and the charging process. A large part of the redaction burden is driven by current disclosure practice, so we have collaborated with criminal justice partners to pilot a more proportionate approach to disclosure. The pilot, running in the Crown Prosecution Service’s south-east region, aims to reduce the redaction burden by reducing the unnecessary sharing of unused material and refocus efforts on what meets the test for disclosure. This should make case preparation more efficient and enable more timely and effective charging decisions. We are also working with policing to support the adoption of AI-enabled redaction technology. The majority of forces now have AI-enabled text redaction tools, and we are supporting those forces to adopt audiovisual multimedia redaction technology in the most efficient way.
In conclusion, we support the aims of these amendments, but given the work in train, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that they are not necessary at this stage. However, I will be very happy to meet her request to facilitate a meeting with the most appropriate Minister, so that we can take the discussion forward. In the meantime, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. The prospect of a meeting is most welcome: I will be able to clarify one or two outstanding points in relation to the material that he has kindly set out. I was glad to hear about the pilot on redaction in the south-east. I hope that, in due course, that will either solve this problem of redaction, which we and the Lib Dems agree is a big problem, or show that some sort of legislation needs to be brought forward. However, in view of the Minister’s response and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.