Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Findings of the MBRRACE-UK report: 'Maternal mortality 2022-2024' that the maternal death rate in pregnancy rose by 20% between 2009–11 and 2022–24

whilst the National Maternity, Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State, will transform these into a deliverable national Action plan to drive change. In the meantime, we

15:21

Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Labour)

- -

drive change. In the meantime, we are taking various actions, including piloting Martha's Rule including piloting Martha's Rule and expanding the maternal medicine networks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for that answer. She'll know that the conservative promised to halve maternity mortality by 2025, and as the report shows, instead, it's risen substantially with stark disparities for older women and those from BME and disadvantaged backgrounds. And between 2021 and 23, over 600 women died either during or shortly after pregnancy, a tragedy compounded by the fact that the majority of cases this was from a preventable complication of the pregnancy itself.

So I know the government's doing certain things to which you referred, and those are welcome. But actually I think that they're not being applied consistently in every area. And more importantly, trusts and trusts are not reply are not required to inform NHS England of the plans that they're making. And in short, there seems to be a lack of robust oversight. I say to my noble friend so can she tell me how will the government ensure that the standards and new procedures that they want to implement will be implemented effectively by every trust and in relation to every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pregnant woman? Hear, hear. My noble friend is right to use the word tragedy in respect of maternal deaths, particularly those from preventable causes. And my noble friend is also correct that noble friend is also correct that unfortunately and sadly, that most aspects of maternal safety ambition, aspects of maternal safety ambition, which was set up under the previous government, are very unlikely to be

15:22

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

achieved. So we have to make sure that for any future target, the system can deliver. And as one system can deliver. And as one example, the maternal care bundle does set clear standards across all does set clear standards across all services for implementation by NHS providers and commissioners, and it providers and commissioners, and it is focussed very much on the main causes of maternal death and harm. As my noble friend asks for, the.

15:23

Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)

- -

As my noble friend asks for, the. >> Government has launched. >> A maternity inquiry, but we've already had lots of maternity inquiries and reports from the charity sector, such as the Muslim Women's Network. I declare my interest as CEO five times more birthright, all with similar findings and recommendations. So instead of having more inquiries, why doesn't the government just get on with it and implement actions? What does it expect to find that it doesn't already know? Can the Minister share how she's implementing existing recommendations? Yeah.

Lady is saying and also her frustration, which I'm sure that

15:23

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

many of us would share. But the purpose of the investigation by our purpose of the investigation by our my noble friend and and the noble my noble friend and and the noble Lady, Baroness Amos, is actually to pull together all of the learning, pull together all of the learning, all of the inquiries. And she has also, for example, given a real voice to those affected, speaking to 170 affected family members, because what's been missing has been voiced and this can't go on.

So we're determined to draw a line as to where we have been, unfortunately, and to actually move forward whilst also taking direct forward whilst also taking direct actions, including, for example, a national programme to support national programme to support struggling trusts to make improvements. Lords my Lords, my Lords recent health service journal. Health service. Journal. Investigative journalism has found that the chief midwifery officer wrote to trust last year, identifying gross

15:24

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)

- -

failures in home births safety. Yet the government has chosen to keep this information private while this information private while women are pushed into unsupported births. Is it acceptable for NHS births. Is it acceptable for NHS England to hide this evidence of systematic safety risk from the systematic safety risk from the public when 14 trusts home birth home birth services have effectively ceased to exist, effectively ceased to exist, despite the legal duty to provide them?

15:25

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, I'm not fully up to speed with the article that the noble Lord raises, but I certainly undertake to look at it and to get back to him, because this is, of course, a very important matter.

15:25

Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)

- -

My Lord. >> Many NHS. Trusts are facing deficits in midwives. There isn't a sufficient workforce. So what is the government doing to tackle this issue? Because new parents, new mothers during their birth are not being supported and there are quite significant problems as a direct result of this.

15:26

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, midwives are absolutely crucial and I pay tribute to them. crucial and I pay tribute to them. And also the wider maternity team. Let me say that as of October 2025, there is an increase of some 3.6%. That's 878 more midwives compared to October 24th. But importantly, we are seeing now by introduction a range of initiatives to improve retention in maternity workforce, including in midwifery. And that will include a number of matters including mentoring, giving better advice and support on pensions and flexible retirement options.

Because we're very keen to retain the long years of service that many midwives and other staff have.

15:26

Lord Kamall (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, touching partly on the question from the noble Lady Baroness Gohir data from MBRRACE-UK shows that black women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth than white women. So does the department and NHS England have any evidence on the reasons for these disparities that the noble Lady can share with the House, and also tell noble Lords how NHS England and the Department intend to tackle these disparities.

15:27

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, I'm glad to say that Baroness Amos will be very much Baroness Amos will be very much focusing on this area. And I referred earlier to the Maternal Care Bundle, which focuses on the five main causes of maternal death and harm, as well as setting out best practice. But when I look at the risk factors, a number of those are particularly associated with groups who live, for example, in areas of greater disadvantage for those who have pre-existing conditions. And as the noble Lord rightly says, sadly, in respect of black women who are and it's totally unacceptable in any day and age, but certainly now that they are three times more likely to die.

We cannot allow this to go on. And that is why we have picked up a key recommendation from the Black Maternal Health Inquiry, which was to to get a mechanisms for surveillance of severe maternal morbidity. And the first data will be expected in the summer.

15:28

Lord Patel (Crossbench)

- -

Lords, my Lords are confidential. Enquiry into maternal deaths is a good indicator of the quality of good indicator of the quality of maternity services. The fact that the rate has gone up from my time of nine per 100,000 to 12.8, now suggests that there is a failure in maternity services. To use an example, 155 women who had a history of psychiatric problems mental health died within a year of delivering a baby. That compares to 611 total numbers. So this is significant number.

And yet the specialist maternity health services that are supposed to look after these women who have mental history have failed. That is, there should be a duty on icbs to produce a plan to look after women who have helped maternal health history, to have a care plan during their pregnancy.

15:29

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, this is, of course, absolutely crucial. And I do absolutely crucial. And I do welcome the fact that as of June of last year, maternal mental health services are available in all parts services are available in all parts of England. And we also now have a 153 operational mother and baby unit beds. And they are providing in-patient care to women experiencing severe mental health difficulties during and before pregnancy. And in addition, mental health services are available for women who have pre-existing mental health needs as well as those who experience challenges because of their pregnancy or labour.

And the GP check up is absolutely crucial. 6 to 8 weeks after birth.

15:30

Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)

- -

Oh my Lord, something is >> Oh my Lord, something is happening I've been watching in the last decade or so, the extraordinary increase in the number of young mothers, healthy young mothers having C-sections. Is this phenomenon, as I call it, that? I mean, it's probably the wrong word to use, but why is this happening? Is this something that is part of this inquiry? Are people trying to understand? Is it because they're afraid? In the midwifery world, that natural births lead to more deaths?

15:30

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, this may be something that Baroness Amos looks at, but which is very much focussed on is, of is very much focussed on is, of course, maternity services that will include mortality. And looking will include mortality. And looking at the range of options, there is, of course, an important balance to be struck that I know the noble Lady will understand, and that is about the voice and choice of patients, and that we do respect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But paramount has to be safety. My Lords, there completes Oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there completes Oral Questions for today. This might be a convenient moment for noble Lords who wish to leave the chamber. So who wish to leave the chamber. So Third Reading of the Crown Estate (Wales) Bill Lord Wigley.

15:32

Legislation: Crown Estate (Wales) Bill - third reading Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

In command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the house that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Estate (Wales) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interest, so far as are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament. For

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the purpose of the Bill. Very grateful, my Lords. I beg to move that this bill be now read

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a third time. The question is. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is. The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the

15:33

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

>> My Lords, I beg to move that the bill do now pass. I would like to thank members of both sides of the chamber who have participated in our earlier debates, and in particular, I would like to thank all 22 county councils in Wales who have each formally resolved to support the objectives of the Bill, and indeed, the Welsh Government have also called for the Crown Estate to be devolved in Wales. If this Bill now allows. If the House allows the Bill now to progress, I hope that there will be MPs in the other place who will find time to take it forward.

So, my Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

15:34

Lord Berkeley (Labour)

- -

Lord German. getting this far, but I would just like to ask the Minister when he replies, does this set a useful precedent in relation to the Crown Estates assets in England? And I could include the Duke of the Duchy of Cornwall assets in England? And does the government have any plans to bring a similar bill back, which would allow the transfer to the government of the day of both these assets in England?

15:34

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

My Lords, while the government's position has been made clear on this matter during earlier stages of both this and the recent Crown Estate Bill, I congratulate the noble Lord Lord Wigley on his Bill, as this House has heard previously, that the government does not support the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales as we believe. We believe the way it currently operates provides the best outcomes for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. The addition of two new Crown Estate commissioners with special responsibility for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, is a positive step and will ensure the Crown Estate Board continues to work in the best interests of Wales.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we have no such plans that he asks about. While I commend the noble Lord Lord Wigley on his Bill, the government's position is clear that we do not support devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. Therefore, I must express reservations on behalf of the government on this Bill.

15:35

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble colleagues for intervening and making the points that they have. I believe that these principles could well apply further afield in due course, perhaps not immediately, but I noted well the points made by the noble Lord, the Minister. I only hope that the opportunity will now be given for colleagues in the House of Commons from Wales to make their voices heard from all sides of the House, and perhaps the government would then think further about it on that basis.

I beg of them, the Bill do now pass.

15:36

Urgent Question Repeat: Planned changes to business rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

The question is that this bill do now pass as many as are that opinion will say content. The opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Question on an answer to an urgent question asked in the an urgent question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on business rates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have more bad news this morning from the ONS on job numbers in hospitality, and I think numbers in hospitality, and I think that makes it even more important that we receive clear answers to that we receive clear answers to the following questions. Why did the government not get the new the government not get the new rating arrangements right? First time in the budget, when we now time in the budget, when we now know that they already had the relevant information on pubs from the Valuation Office Agency, following briefing to the FTT last week.

Not only pubs, but also restaurants and hotels do not know where they stand from the 1st of April. This is agony for them. When will the government make a clear statement of their intentions?

15:37

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, as the noble Lady knows, and as I've said before, the previous revaluation was based on previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant rateable values were much lower. That does mean that some businesses, including retail, hospitality and leisure venues, are now seeing an increase as a result of this valuation. But at the budget, we therefore announced three elements of support at a total cost of £4.3 billion. We implemented transitional relief.

We've capped the increase for any businesses whose value has increased so they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief, and we've expanded the Supporting Small Businesses scheme. But quite rightly, the noble Lady does say, and I do acknowledge and as I've said in your Lordships' House before, that for pubs and others, the revaluation does mean that they will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. That's why we are working with the sector to ensure it gets the support it needs.

Noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said on this in recent days. I'm not going to add to that now, or comment on speculation when there are further comments to be made. I'm sure I will be back here to discuss them with noble Lords.

15:38

Grassroots music venues and >> Grassroots music venues and recording studios do not qualify for relief because of the way visiting members of the public is visiting members of the public is defined. Will Ministers commit to reviewing or amending the eligibility criteria so that businesses integral to the creative economy are not excluded?

15:38

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I do absolutely hear what the noble Lord says, and I understand absolutely the points that he's absolutely the points that he's making. As I've said, noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and Chancellor have said in recent days. I'm not going to add to that now, but when there are further comments to be made, I'm sure I will be able to discuss them with the noble Lord.

15:39

Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)

- -

Tell me when we're talking about business rates. The many thousands business rates. The many thousands now of Turkish barbers, as they're so called, the vape shops, the nail bars which are all cash only, which have infected our villages, our towns and our cities. Are any of them paying any business rates? Are any of them paying tax? We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime, county lines, drugs. They are getting away for free.

The whole thing seems to be for free and they're laughing at us. Meanwhile, our pubs and our hospitality as a whole is on a knife edge of existence. How is that fair?

15:39

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Well, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lady says and HMRC have announced, I think, quite substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses that noble Lady mentions. And I think you'll have seen noble Lady will have seen several of those businesses closing in recent, in recent months. And she's quite right. Of course, more needs to be done. She's absolutely right to to talk about the importance of the hospitality industry and completely recognise that it plays an incredibly important role in the UK economy, employing over 2 million people and vital to the life of high streets across the UK.

And we will absolutely do what we can to support that industry.

15:40

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord. >> My Lord. >> The adage I use formerly, which is measure twice, cut once. That. Does the Minister understand, though, that there is real urgency to get response and relief now within the hospitality industry and for pubs that are as they face uncertainty, many believing that the blows had ended, went ahead and hired or invested and are now unsure whether or not they are economically viable. And has he looked at this sort of uncertainty and the impact that it has had, particularly on the independents, who I understand are disproportionately affected?

15:41

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I do understand a lot of what the noble Lady says, and I agree with a lot of what she says. It's with a lot of what she says. It's important that we are able to create the certainty for those businesses. That is so important. I would, though, just say we did spend £4.3 billion at the time of the budget in support of the businesses that she is describing. We are implementing transitional relief to cap the amount that bills increase for businesses who would otherwise have seen big increases.

For any business whose values increase so they are no longer eligible for business rates relief, we are capping that increase and we've expanded the small Supporting Small Businesses scheme. As I say, that's a total cost of £4.3 billion. So we absolutely do recognise the issues facing those businesses. But as I say, I've already said that for pubs and others, the revaluation does mean they will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. And that is exactly why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support that it needs.

15:42

Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, the retail and hospitality industries are often where those youngsters who are finding it very difficult to get into the workplace, get their first foothold, so understandably, there have to be increases in the overheads that these organisations are paying. But could the noble Lord Minister look at ways in which these organisations might be helped to bring some of those people who really need their first job into the employment market?

15:42

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Well, the noble Lady is absolutely right. The important role that those businesses play in, in giving young people their first jobs. And I think what she says is right. And I and I agree with with her, we are taking significant measures, I think, to help the UK hospitality sector, as she says, it employs over 2 million people and is absolutely vital to high streets across the UK. Based on recommendations from the Licensing Taskforce, we published a new national licensing policy framework for hospitality sector at the time of the budget.

We're exploring planning reforms to help pubs and hospitality to expand, and the Hospitality Support Fund has helped pubs in rural areas to diversify, ensuring they can continue in their role as vital community hubs. There's no.

15:43

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Doubt that the pub. Companies >> Doubt that the pub. Companies are. The tenants are facing major problems in the UK, but does he problems in the UK, but does he agree with me that while those pubs are struggling, brewers, profits and brewers and pub companies are making record profits? Isn't it time they passed that on to the pub itself?

15:43

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Well, my noble friend is correct to say that pubs have for a long time been struggling in this economy. I think in the previous 14 years of the of the last government, 7000 pubs closed in the UK. So this is a long standing issue in terms of the the wider question he asks, I'm more than happy to look into that.

15:44

Lord Hayward (Conservative)

- -

Former chief executive of the beer and pub, the British Beer and Pub Association. I'm only too Pub Association. I'm only too conscious of the problems that the hospitality industry have faced over a large number of years, but I must say that the minister's answer and I listened in from the Peers Gallery in the Commons yesterday to the Minister's answers, the unwillingness to give any indication to the industry, whichever fields may be covered, as to when decisions will be given to them, means that they are totally unable to plan.

And the Minister's answer yet again today gave no indication of whether there will be a response soon. At some time in the next few weeks or before the next financial year starts.

15:44

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

EA I don't think I heard a question at the end there, but as I've said already, we are working I've said already, we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support that it needs.

15:44

Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)

- -

Given my noble friend's question, given the importance of hospitality for employment and in the previous question about the number of young people that are unemployed, why is it hospitality not included in the government's industrial strategy?

15:45

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

It's an excellent question. I think, of course, we have a we have a separate strategies for hospitality, retail, retail, hospital and leisure sector. I think in terms of the industrial strategy, it's trying to do something different from what that strategy is doing. I think that just because one is not in the industrial strategy doesn't mean we don't value that sector extremely highly and do all we can for that sector.

15:45

Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)

- -

There are many charity shops in >> There are many charity shops in the high streets across this country. They receive 80% mandatory country. They receive 80% mandatory relief and often up to 100% discretionary. Many of these charities are actually multi-million pound businesses. And notwithstanding the pressures on the high street and the pressures to small businesses, obviously with this forthcoming increases, would the Minister agree with me that perhaps it's about time that we looked into this issue to make sure that those on the high street were paying a fair rate for their business rates?

15:46

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Good point. the noble Lady says, and I think it's very important to say that we are fundamentally reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower business tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties funded by a higher rate on the most valuable properties. I think that's absolutely the right thing to do.

15:46

Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – committee stage (day 11) part one Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

Again, in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Lord Hanson of Flint. now. >> Again resolve. >> Itself. >> Into a committee upon the bill. >> Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order! The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. After clause 144, amendment 411, the Lord Davies of Gower.

15:47

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I beg to move amendment 411 standing in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Keen of Ellie. This is an amendment championed by my hon. Friend Matt Vickers at committee. In the other place, the amendment alters the statutory threshold for the exercise of the powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994. That section permits a police officer of at least the rank of inspector to authorise, stop and search powers within a defined locality for a period of 24 hours.

Where such an authorisation has been given, a police officer may stop any member of the public to search them for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments without suspicion of a common of the commission of an offence, so essentially it allows for a temporary adjustment to standard stop and search powers. The current test that must be met is for the officer to of sufficient rank to reasonably reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area.

Our amendment lowers the threshold so that the police would be able to use section 60 powers, where there is a reasonable likelihood of violence, not serious violence. No, the fundamental principle behind this amendment is that the police should be able to act where there is a threat of violence, any form of violence, without being required to weigh the seriousness of that violence. This removes the more subjective element of the test. We know that stop and search powers are highly effective in combating crime and preventing violent offences.

In the year ending March 2025, there were a total of 528,582 stop and search conducted by officers in England and Wales. This represents a slight decrease of 1.4% from the previous year. Of those, 5572 were conducted under section 60 powers, which actually represents an increase of 5.4%. This is welcome, and I am pleased to see the police making good use of their powers. But given that the there were 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury recorded by the police in the year ending June 2025, a figure that the ONS has said shows no statistically significant change compared with the previous year.

And there were still 51,527 knife offences. There is more work that needs to be done. So, my Lords, lowering the threshold for the use of section 60 is another tool that the government could utilise in their efforts to crack down on the use of offensive weapons and the incidents of violence. I beg to move.

15:49

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause 144, insert the new clause as 144, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to support the Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the front bench. And may I also thank the House for their forbearance, the fact that I wasn't able to move my previous amendment on mobile phone thefts, and I'd like to put on record my warmest thanks to my noble friend, Baroness Neville-rolfe for moving it so eloquently on that occasion.

My Lords, this is an issue about the difference between serious crime and serious violence and violence. But the wider context, my Lords, is the fact that UK has a knife crime problem in London. The number of incidents up to June 2025 was 15,639, and this is an increase of nearly 72% from the data recorded in the year 20 1516. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the numbers of stop and search encounters peaked at the end of the last Labour government and dramatically decreased under the previous.

The last two governments. Between 2003 and 2011, numbers of stop and search stop and searches increased, peaking at 1.2 million. But by 2018 this had fallen 77%. The number of arrests resulting from stop and search encounters had fallen from 120,000 to 48,000. My Lords, the fact of the matter is that there is significant evidence that Stop and search does demonstrably have an impact on the incidence of knife crime and therefore reducing crime. A study released in 2025 by two criminologists, Piquero and Lawrence Sherman, found that stop and search encounters were successful in reducing deaths and injuries related to weapons when they analysed data between 2008 and 2023.

The conclusion of the study was, quote, increased stop and search encounters can significantly reduce knife related injuries and homicides in public places. An evidence from a number of bodies and think tanks, including Policy Exchange, suggests that whilst there may be a range of causal factors, a link between rates of knife crime and rates of stop and search exists as the rate of stop and search searches decreases, the amount of knife crime increases as stop and search rises. The amount of knife crime also rises, my Lords.

To quote the Chief Constable, Sir Stephen Watson, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, last year, if you don't back your officers to do stop and search, they will stop doing stop and search. And if you stop doing stop and search, you'll see street robberies going up. So, my Lords, the issue is that the difference between serious violence and violence within that context, and my simple point to your Lordships' House is that if we want to take weapons off the streets and prevent incidences of knife crime and other crime, then you have to increase, stop and search, and therefore you have to give warranted officers the legal underpinning and the authority to make those appropriate decisions for stop and search.

In 2023, there were 5014 occasions when a police officer found a weapon or firearm when looking for a prohibited item, 3221 of these cases, they were looking for drugs. This is a case of effective policing and not just a case of getting lucky. My Lords, if we can stop for violence, they may find weapons that could have led to a more serious situation. If not, there is a potential for people to just walk away. On that basis, I think it's wise for the government to give consideration to this amendment because it does allow flexibility in operational policing, and I do believe fundamentally it will prevent crime and may, even in the long run, prevent serious injury or death.

And therefore, I would invite Ministers and the House to give briefly.

15:54

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

To. brings clarity and accountability to the exceptional power in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. This is not a call for strengthen police powers. It's a call to describe them accurately so the public understands their narrow scope and the safeguards that constrain them. Section 60 is triggered only when a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes exceptional rather than just routine. The inspector level threshold, the within, the written and recorded authorisation, the geographic and temporal limits, the ability to seize weapons, and the requirement to provide records to those stock are not peripheral details.

They are the legal guardrails that protect civil liberties while enabling targeted public safety action. I simply ask, where is the dividing line between violence and serious violence? OK, someone gets stabbed multiple times and is life threatening. I think we'd all agree that serious violence. But what about the person who gets stabbed once and suffers a non-life threatening cut? It's not merely violence so it doesn't count. And that is why we have to change this definition to any violence, no matter how serious it may be called.

This is not wide ranging. This is not a wide ranging opening of the stop and search powers, applying everywhere for all time, using the word violence in operational documents with an explicit cross-reference to the sixth section, 60 targets reduces confusion and broadens with broader strategic programs labelled serious violence. It prevents the normalisation of suspicionless searches and makes it easier for Parliament oversight bodies and the public to scrutinise each authorisation against the statutory test. My Lords, I conclude by saying this amendment is modest, it's practical and it's proportionate.

It highlights the statutory safeguards and does not remove any of them, but it does give the police a sensible power to save lives and injury where they think there may be more violence. I do urge the House and the noble Lords Minister to support amendment 411.

15:57

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to agree with the wording as it is in the Bill. The word serious is quite important. Stop serious is quite important. Stop and search, particularly in the London area, has been abused. London area, has been abused. You're supposed to stop somebody because of reasonable grounds to because of reasonable grounds to suspect. But as somebody who was stopped and searched six times and stopped and searched six times and every time I didn't have anything they thought I would be having.

And if you've been a sort of overpolicing, that's what I see it as. It's a pity that. Lord Hogan-howe is not here, because when he became. The chief police officer in this place, he realised that some of this actually wasn't working. It was actually antagonising communities and not actually delivering the result that was being expected. So the bill, as it is worded in terms of serious, this amendment is trying to lower the threshold. And because the intention of the bill is actually to stop serious crime, the word serious for me is quite important.

So I would not be supporting this

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page