Lords Chamber

Thursday 22nd January 2026

(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Bi; Lord Walker of Broxton
-

>> >> Charles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come.

Greeting. Know ye that we of our Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Famida Bi commander of our most excellent Order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Bi of Bermondsey in the London Borough of Southwark.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Bi to have and to hold unto her for her life, willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 19th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I Famida Bi Baroness Bi do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Richard Malcolm Walker officer of our most excellent order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Walker of Broxton, of Broxton in our county of Cheshire.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name. State, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Walker of Broxton, to have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 20th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Richard Lord Walker of Broxton, do swear by Almighty God Broxton, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA.
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:04
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
Unprepared. But I was going to >> Unprepared. But I was going to speak on this Lord Bailey I think has made a good suggestion here. He has made a good suggestion here. He makes a broad point that in fact, the police misconduct process takes far too long, and in that I would agree it. To be fair, it's not the only misconduct process that takes a long time, but this one is particularly challenged. I wanted to particularly mention that two things.

One, that time deadlines I think would be helpful. There are two ways to approach it. One is that there might be an absolute deadline, as Lord Bailey suggests, which is 12 months, and then some independent, legally qualified person looks at the case. I think that could work. The alternative is to set some deadlines so that say, for example, 90% of cases were resolved in one year, which at least would give the system a kick. And at the moment, I'm afraid the system isn't getting any better.

It's getting worse rather than better. So I think some kind of either statutory or guidelines would be a good idea. I raised the on Tuesday the issue of firearms officers, and they're a group particularly affected by it. And that's what I particularly want to speak to here. I've argued that there should be a higher bar before they're prosecuted for murder. The government do not accept that at the moment. They have offered anonymity to debate that shortly. But part of the problems for particularly firearms officers is the incredible length of time.

In some cases. There have been two cases over the last 20 years, which took ten years. The case of PC long, who was prosecuted after a series of legal machinations only to be found not guilty ten years later. And then the case of W80, who, after a public inquiry, which basically was an inquest led by a High Court judge because there was intercept evidence involved in the case, the High Court judge decided that there was no unlawful killing.

The Ipoc or its predecessor decided that there should be some gross misconduct. The Metropolitan Police disagreed. It eventually ended up in the Supreme Court, who ordered there would be a misconduct hearing, and the legally qualified chair of the independent tribunal said there was no case to answer, no case to answer. After ten years of being considered by the Supreme Court, an officer had been under investigation for ten years. That can't be right. I think some of the problems are to do with the sequential nature of the decision making.

In these cases, officers are often under jeopardy, first of all, from an IOPC, then from CPS. Then obviously it could go to court. There may be a finding of not guilty, but then the case can go back for firearms officers where someone has died to a coroner's inquest and a coroner's inquest can then find and has an unlawful killing verdict, at which point it then goes back through the cycle again, which is one of the reasons some of these problems are arising. So my question really for the government is one, deadlines I think would be a good idea, either as an advisory or as a mandatory limit.

Number two, I don't understand why some of the people involved in the decision making I've just described have to do it sequentially and not in parallel. For example, why can't the CPS and the iOPC decide something together whether something is a crime, whether it's a misconduct at the moment, not only are there many links in the chain, sometimes they come into contradictory conclusions, but more importantly, it's taking too long and the people who are suffering at the end of this are two groups of people.

I would argue in my case, the case that I argue for are the firearms officers, but so are the families of the people who are waiting to hear what's happening there has lost someone. They deserve to hear whether or not this is a crime or whether it's a misconduct or not. And at the moment, that's not happening. So I think that Lord Bailey proposal, Lord Bailey amendment is a sensible suggestion. I would support it, but if the government don't support it, perhaps they would like to make some indication of how they intend to improve the misconduct system, particularly as it affects firearms officers in these circumstances.

I've described.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 151. Insert the following new clause. The words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, this has been a short

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been a short debate. I agree with many of the debate. I agree with many of the points made by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe. I find it almost extraordinary that misconduct
12:09
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
extraordinary that misconduct investigations linger on for so long. It really is an absolute disgrace for everybody involved. Police professional standards departments have far too long been seen as something of a Cinderella function within forces chronically under prioritised, underfunded and understaffed. And now they're buckling under the surge of volume of complaints, combined with a narrowing of the IOPC remit, which increasingly takes on only the most serious and high profile cases. This results in a growing backlog and indefinite drift.

Amendment 42 EA confronts this head on. Such independent legal oversight could act as a checkpoint, strengthening individual case oversights and extracting timely lessons from failures. Criminal investigations stay exempt, protecting the pursuit of serious crime. There are risks in setting time targets for investigations. There's no question about that, not least the incentive for officers to delay cooperation. If the clock is ticking. And we have concerned that a rigid cap could risk corner cutting on complex investigations, but at the very least, stronger guidance on the expected length of inquiries is now required, as well as real scrutiny.

When these expectations are missed, there also needs to be a much sharper focus on leadership and case management. Complainants should not face long waits, especially knowing time will diminish the strength of their evidence. Neither should innocent officers endure years in limbo with their career stalled and well-being eroded, taxpayers should not bear the rising cost of suspensions while losing frontline capacity. At the same time, amendment 42 A would restore some balance by prioritising fairness to officers, closure for victims and credibility for policing.

We are happy to support it and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
12:11
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
UQ my Lords, can I thank. >> UQ my Lords, can I thank. >> My noble friend Lord Bailey for tabling his amendment 42 A and also tabling his amendment 42 A and also thank Lord Hogan-Howe for ably stepping into the breach to A to allow this this amendment to be debated. It is a very important matter and I'm glad we had the chance to debate it. I'm very sympathetic to the amendments goals which aim to set a 12 month time limit for misconduct and gross misconduct investigation within police forces.

And as others have said, my Lords, timely legal restitution is the only way that justice is effectively served. That applies both to those in the police who are under investigation, but also obviously to victims who are let down by delays that are needlessly but but often the result of administrative workload. Applying a strict deadline for remedies accepted only under extraordinary circumstances is an easy way by which institutions can be encouraged to proceed with investigations in a timely fashion.

That said, my Lords, I am a little wary of fully endorsing a blanket time limit on police forces for investigations. Whilst in some cases, perhaps even most cases, misconduct in investigations can and should be sped up, I think it would be heedless to assume that all forces are simply being inefficient in terms of the time that investigations take, there is a vast disparity between forces in their capacity to deal with their primary function of investigating crime, let alone with administrative internal matters such as as conduct matters.

The ability for certain forces to therefore spare the resources to source. For instance, legally qualified adjudicators shouldn't be assumed. Officer numbers are down, crime is up, and we should, I think, be careful about placing additional requirements on police forces that perhaps expedited conduct investigations might entail. And my Lords, of course, we support the aim of increasing efficiency and ensuring justice is delivered. And I thank my noble friend for his amendments and look forward to hearing the noble Lord.

The Minister's response.
12:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the House, and particularly to noble Lord Hogan-howe for moving the amendment. And to be fair to the noble Lord Bailey, Paddington. He did stay here very late on the last day. We had this for the end, and I'm sorry that he's not able to be in his place today, but he was here when we did pull stumps on Tuesday night, had gone 11 to move the amendment. But anyway, having said that, his amendment, as we've said, seeks to introduce a new system of independent legal adjudicators with powers to close down investigations.

My Lords, I think I can agree with the noble Lord Hogan-howe, with the Louisville Baroness Doocey and with the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, that delays in investigations are in nobody's interests, not in the interests of police officers who subsequently are proved innocent, nor in the interests of victims, nor in the interests of speedy justice on those who have strayed and committed potential offences. Lengthy delays risk impacting the confidence of complainants and the welfare of police officers involved, so we recognise those impacts, which is why we introduced reforms last year, including a presumption on fast track hearings for former officers and a broader power for police forces to utilise fast track hearings.

In addition, and I hope this helps the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, we have committed to establish a wider review to address barriers to timeliness in police misconduct as part of the police accountability review that we're currently undertaking, and I agree completely. Timeliness must improve, but I would argue that this amendment could potentially add bureaucracy cost delay to the system and not remove it. And the noble Lord Hogan-howe, I'm sure, will recall under previous governments, the responsibilities of independent lawyers in the misconduct system were removed, with senior officers replacing them as chairs of misconduct hearings.

Lawyers now sit as independent legal advisers on misconduct panels and reintroducing a decision making role for them will not only blur the lines of independence, but would also come at greater financial cost to policing, which again goes, I think to the point the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel mentioned himself in his contribution. We are committed as a government to ensuring chief constables have the necessary powers to remove those who have no place in policing, but this amendment could have a significant detrimental effect on public confidence.

Let me just give one example, if I may, to the noble Lord Hogan-howe. It could mean, for example, with a timeline on the investigation into gross misconduct, an investigation could be terminated, not because it has been resolved, but because of an arbitrary time limit being reached. And the time limit proposed here could mean that significantly complex, difficult cases are terminated without a resolution for the victim or indeed for the police officer against whom any allegations are made. So I would say that, yes, there is a point in the general thrust of the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington's amendment.

Yes, there is a problem that needs to be resolved, but I would suggest that the government can resolve this without the legislative proposal before the committee today. And I would ask the noble Lord, who has just nobly volunteered to move the amendment to now. Nobody volunteered to withdraw it.
12:17
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
Certainly first for me. First of >> Certainly first for me. First of all, thank you for the Minister for his reply and for other people's comments. And only a couple of comments. And only a couple of points I thought I might make in. In response, I indicated in my words that although Lord Bailey amendment suggests a mandatory set limit, there may be difficulty with that. I wonder if the government, in their review, which the Minister has mentioned, might consider just three things.

One is that they set an expectation so that, for example, cases should be completed within 12 months, unless, for example, the director general of the iOPC concludes otherwise, or some arbiter. Number two is just that. I raised, in my words, about the sequential nature of the decision making and the fact that that compound effect gives a longer. A longer time than is. I would regard as necessary. I just I'm trying to work out now whether I should let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Birt would you would it be OK for Lord Bailey to. The Lord wasn't here for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord wasn't here for the start of the grouping? I'm afraid he can't contribute. I'll just conclude, which is that I just wonder in the review, they could consider this sequential decision making, which I don't think helps speed. If there have been really adventurous, they could look at whether police officers should be employees, because then should be employees, because then you get lawyers out of the system and I sit surrounded by them. And but they never make it quicker or cheaper.

And everyone else who's an employee can go to employment tribunal officers can't. Who's on which grounds? Lawyers get involved. So I'm afraid that is one of the major factors in why this thing takes so long and is expensive. I've taken my life in my hands. At that point, I was sitting down and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 152 stand part of the
12:19
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
bill. Lord Pannick. >> My Lords. >> I beg to move. The clause is one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The clause is one five, 2153154 and 155. Do not stand part of the bill. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the News Media Association. This amendment is in the name of the noble Lord Lord Pannick, who unfortunately can't be here today as he is on business abroad. I have added my own name along with the noble Lady Baroness Cash and very grateful to her.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, I'm aware that I am surrounded by lawyers wherever I look, but I must admit to not being one of them. My Lord. These provisions introduce a statutory presumption of anonymity for firearms officers charged with a qualifying offence involving the discharge of a lethal weapon. Clause 152 creates a presumption that the criminal courts grant anonymity to any firearms officers charged with a qualifying offence, unless to do so would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Clause 153 allows the court to preserve or reimpose anonymity after conviction if there is an appeal, while clause 154 defines a reporting direction as barring the publication of any matter that might lead to identification, including name, address, place of work, photographs or video. Clause 155 sets out the kinds of measures that may be required to be taken under an anonymity order, including screening or voice modulation, during a court appearance. Under the clauses, anonymity would apply from the point of charge until conviction and sentence, or, where relevant, an appeal is abandoned or dismissed.

If an officer is acquitted or charges are dropped. Anonymity, including reporting restrictions, can persist indefinitely. My Lords, taken together, these measures are significant. Attack on open justice and on press and media freedom, and indeed the public's right to receive information, something which should only be curtailed in the most exceptional circumstances. I believe they would undermine the already fragile trust in the police, limit opportunities for public scrutiny of those entrusted with firearms, which is a most serious manifestation of state power and have a profound, chilling impact on public interest reporting.

My Lords, let me outline the reasons why I believe these clauses are wrong. First of all, I believe them to be their provision to be unnecessary. Judges already have the power to grant anonymity where there is clear evidence of a real and immediate risk to an officer or their family. With proper and proportionate safeguards in place for fairness and review, under the current law, a defendant applying to the court for anonymity must rightly demonstrate with clear and cogent evidence that anonymity is strictly necessary to protect their rights.

Such orders are tailored, time limited and subject to review. They do not, therefore, interfere with the rights of the media or the expectations of the public, and strike the right balance between officer safety, which we must be obviously very concerned about, and open justice. That is a workable and trusted balance between safety and open justice. These clauses reverse that position for a special category of alleged offender, and are therefore an unprecedented shift in English law. Second, my Lords, there is no evidence for making such sweeping changes to the law.

The Home Office has never provided evidence that police officers, as a group, are more likely to be subject to harm by being identified as defendant in a criminal case than any other defendant in a high profile or controversial case, and that there is therefore a need to upend the existing law to give firearms officers greater protection from legitimate scrutiny than anyone else, creating a justifiable perception in the public mind that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else.

And they would be right. Third, my Lords, these provisions clearly undermine the long standing principles of open justice that are a fundamental tenet of our legal system and essential to our free society. Justice must not only be done, but must also always be seen to be done by the public, and therefore, indeed by the press. Such a sweeping privacy regime, applying automatically regardless of any actual risk posed to an officer, which clearly gives protection to state agents, would clearly undermine confidence in the system.

If anything, my Lords, there is the clearest possible public interest in serious criminal cases involving police officers to be subject to the highest form of rigorous public scrutiny and transparency, not the most lax. And, my Lord, anything which undermines open justice, of course, risks increasing the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Fourth, one of the most practical advantages of open justice and transparency is the critical role of a robust media in identifying systemic issues and patterns of offending. These clauses would make that impossible.

Clause 155, for instance, allows for a wide range of contextual information to be kept from the public, including, vitally, an officer's workplace. How can the press and the public help identify patterns or bring additional information to light? In the absence of such basic information that would hamper investigations and make far less effective public appeals information? Indeed, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley, has recently supported calls to share more details, not fewer, about suspects with the public. Earlier, in a bid to stop the spread of misinformation.

Fifth, and on that very point, these clauses, my Lords, increase and create a heightened risk of jigsaw identification of a suspect occurring where separate, anonymised details are combined with publicly available information to identify an individual. This is inevitable, particularly in small communities with their own online networks and the danger of false identification, with very serious repercussions for an individual is all too obvious. Indeed, that is also what would produce the chilling effect in legitimate, verified journalism, because editors would inevitably act with extreme caution in reporting, needlessly censoring it to avoid harsh penalties for breaching a court order.

Finally, my Lords, there are certainly issues about the compatibility of these clauses with the others are far more expert than I on this, and I'm going to let them deal with it during this debate. But it is clear to me, as a layperson that the interference with freedom of expression contained in these clauses is wholly disproportionate, given that no pressing social need has been demonstrated. In summary, no evidence has been provided as the basis for such a sweeping change in the law set out in these clauses, which would produce a two tier justice system.

They interfere with press and media freedom in a wholly disproportionate way, and would create a profound chilling effect on public interest reporting. They undermine the principles of open justice that are bedrock of our judicial system and vital to our open, democratic society. They risk damaging still further public confidence in the police, already at an all time low after the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. And in our judicial system and above all, they are unnecessary because suitable safeguards balancing officer safety with public accountability and scrutiny already exist and have proved themselves workable and effective.

For all these reasons, I do not believe these these clauses should stand part of the Bill, and I hope the noble Lady will indicate that the government is going to think the government is going to think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. I beg to move. Now. Lord Baker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Mr. speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that that. I'm sorry. Baroness Cash.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to support the amendments tabled by Lord Pannick Lord Black of Brentwood and signed
12:28
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Black of Brentwood and signed by myself that clauses one, five, two, three, four and five should be removed in their entirety from this bill. Before I begin, I just want to make absolutely clear to the House that there is no question today about whether authorised firearms officers encounter danger, because of course they do. And I just want to pay tribute to them and to their families for the risks that they assume in the course of their daily lives, protecting all of us.

But nor is it about whether the court should protect individuals where there is a real and immediate risk to life or safety, because that already exists. And I spent 15 years as a libel and media barrister with learned Lord Lord Garnier in chambers, defending with great passion the imposition of reporting restrictions in the defence of freedom of expression. And it is that defence that I'm here to speak about today, because these amendments would see a constitutional cornerstone of our democracy overturned.

Open justice isn't a concession to the media. Open justice is about the public. It's about understanding what is going on in our criminal justice system. It protects the very sacred principle in this country of policing by consent, on which we rely on the confidence and belief of the public in transparency. It maintains confidence in the legitimacy of criminal proceedings. And when, tragically and let's be realistic, it's what we're talking about here. Tragically, the state has killed or maimed someone because it is the state represented by that firearms officer, by the use of force.

It provides accountability to the public, and the public should have that accountability. That's why anonymity has always been exceptional. It's only justified on evidence and only where strictly necessary, even in cases of national security and terrorism, that remains the case. So why now? Why these amendments? I think it's important that we reflect on the context in which they're being brought forward. The case behind the proposal, acknowledged by the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, is that of Martyn Blake police officer, who shot and tragically killed Chris Kaba during a police stop in Streatham in September 2022.

For those of you who remember the case, after a year long investigation, a year long. In light of the amendment that's just gone before the CPS authorised a charge of murder in September 2023, and the court initially had granted the officer anonymity following that charging decision. Firearms officers laid down their arms and, you may recall widely reported issues regarding morale in the force, recruitment of firearms officers and ensuring that they knew that they had the confidence of the government and the public to do their jobs safely and securely.

All of that legitimate, all of those concerns legitimate. But please remember today when considering this, and I'd ask the government to please bear this in mind too, because it does seem to have been overlooked in all of the conversations about this that those firearms officers laid down their arms after the charging decision, not after the anonymity decision had been lifted, because that's what happened. Initially, there was a storm about the anonymity, speculation, fear, concern, conspiracy theories, online campaigns and the officer was subjected to endless questions and issues around his and his family's life.

In fact, there has been no evidence that the lifting of the anonymity order caused any further problems for him than the initial lack of transparency, which raised suspicion and led the public to have fears and doubts. And it's that lack of evidence in bringing these amendments forward that causes me the gravest of concern, even when, under the current system, an anonymity order can be made. As we saw in the Blake case, it is only done on evidence and in exceptional circumstances.

Here, what we're trying to do is reverse that principle. After that case, you may also recall, noble Lords may also recall that there was a review of the standards of conduct in firearms charges. The Godwin Fulford review. Even then, no issues were raised about the anonymity protection for officers that was drawn by the Home Secretary from some concerns, and they were put no higher than concerns in the evidence given to that inquiry. So these clauses invert some of the most important principles in our justice system.

They give rise to the risk of a declaration of incompatibility with the European Court by the European Court of Human Rights, subject to section four of the Human Rights Act. They proceed not from risk establishing the individual case, but from the status of a defendant. What a terrible principle to instil and embody in our law. They tell the courts that secrecy should be presumed, that the public should be kept away from the facts because of the role a defendant performs.

That's not a modest adjustment. The government is seeking. It's a change of principle. It's an unprecedented shift in English criminal law. My noble Lord Lord Black has referenced already the compromises and the difficulties for investigation of crimes. If the press are not able to report freely, and I endorse and support all of those, I won't repeat them. Presumptions about reporting matter. They signal to the public Parliament's view of where the balance should lie, and they shape outcomes and public perception for the reasons the noble Lord gave and many others.

I am sure noble Lords are already thinking about sitting here. Once anonymity becomes the default, openness becomes something that must be justified rather than something that is assumed. That runs against European human rights law, our own Human Rights Act, and all of the cornerstone principles of our democracy. The justification offered is not adequate that firearms officers face a heightened risk of reprisal. It might be true in particular cases, but the law already provides for that. That very argument where risk is demonstrated, they can and they do grant anonymity when it has been justified on evidence and shown to be strictly necessary.

It is not once in any of the debates, any of the public statements and any of the conversations around this, these amendments being made, why firearms officers should be singled out for a statutory presumption when others who face serious threats do not. What are we opening the floodgates to prison officers, soldiers, witnesses and organised crime cases, or private citizens caught up in highly contentious incidents? Why wouldn't we then have to provide anonymity to some or all of the above? Equality before the law.

Our rule of law is not strengthened by creating special rules for one category of defendant and particularly, and this is so important, particularly when that defendant is an agent of the state. There's also the issue of public confidence when the state takes a life. Transparency is essential. We are the United Kingdom. We we have led the world in these principles. We're not Iran. We're not some third world country trying to figure out how to dictate its people.

And so once Parliament were to accept that open justice may be displaced by default because of operational pressure or institutional anxiety, it would become easier to extend that logic elsewhere. This is how fundamental principles are eroded. Incremental exceptions that seem reasonable in isolation. Perhaps, but and maybe it's trite for me. As a former practising barrister said, hard cases make bad law, and in this case it would seem hard politics to. We already, my Lords, have a system that allows courts to protect safety where it's genuinely at risk without abandoning openness, accountability or equality before the law.

For all of these reasons, I support the amendments and submit that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.
12:38
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords. >> Lords. >> I respectfully disagree with the proposition that these clauses should be removed from the Bill. My should be removed from the Bill. My views will come as no surprise to the ten noble Lords who were present in the chamber on Tuesday night at 11:15 p.m. to debate my amendment on why police officers who use excessive force on the spur of the moment in the honest but mistaken belief that their use of force was reasonable, should be sentenced differently.

An opportunity to debate that further at report. The underlying principles here are as to whether anonymity should be given to police firearms officers in criminal proceedings, where they're charged with a qualifying offence are exactly the same as the House of Lords Judicial committee said 30 years ago, in the case of Lee Clegg. Law enforcement officers deserve to be treated differently since they go on patrol to assist in the maintenance of law and order, with no intention of killing or wounding anyone.

They are faced with evil people who get out of bed with the full intention of trying to kill them and us. That life and death situation does not normally confront the rest of us. These officers have to make split second decisions in order to protect us and deserve, at the very least, to be given anonymity if they're charged with a criminal offence so that they and their families are protected from adverse publicity during those proceedings. The last thing we want is such brave officers being deterred from volunteering for firearms training.

When the National Police Chiefs Council says police forces across England and Wales are grappling with a significant shortage of firearms officers, exacerbated by the lack of legal protections afforded to armed officers, particularly regarding criminal and misconduct proceedings. Clauses 152 to 155 are a welcome recognition by the government that police firearms officers are in a unique position. As I have said, I would take this further to address how such officers are sentenced, but that must wait for a report.

In the meantime, the modest protection of anonymity during criminal proceedings, with an exception built in where anonymity would not be in the interest of justice, is a modest and proportionate measure, which is long overdue.
12:40
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Share with the noble Lord Hall concern and admiration for our firearms officers and officers firearms officers and officers generally, who have a very difficult job to do, and I declare an interest. Having acted for an interest. Having acted for police forces in cases involving the use of firearms. But I do not share his conclusions about these particular provisions. I should also declare an interest as the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regulates the press or those bodies that choose to be regulated by Ipso.

And I hope that's given me some indication of some of the challenges that journalists face, particularly in terms of reporting court proceedings. Very often there are struggling to cover because of the reduced number of journalists, that the general facilities available to newspapers. They're struggling to cover court cases, and they're going to be faced with this, to become law with a presumption which has changed the balance that already exists and does represent, on the face of it, a challenge to our principles of open justice.

Now, given that there already is a discretion available to the courts. On the question of anonymity, I asked the Minister this question what is wrong with the existing law which provides that there is such a balance to be exercised by the judge? If there is nothing wrong with the law, there is of course, no need to change it. But this is a significant change, and the government must have some very clear thoughts as to why they are changing it. What is the situation that now persists which requires a fundamental change in questions of reporting and free speech? Supposing it is possible to persuade a judge to rebut the presumption which will now exist in these particular provisions, I ask the Minister this what would be a good reason for lifting the anonymity which prima facie is going to be imposed by these provisions? It's important, before we make such an a really significant change in the law, that the rationale is clearly understood.

So whilst not in any way undermining our hope or questioning the importance of protecting officers in appropriate circumstances, the balance is a very subtle one, and that balance should not be disturbed by these particular provisions. I don't think we even need to consider the European Court of Human Rights position. This is an ancient tradition of open justice, and it's one which is, I'm afraid to say, threatened by these provisions.
12:43
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I, I rise to oppose the amendment and support the government in their clauses. And I've heard the proposals of the bill. Frankly, I think make much of what is a relatively weak argument to suggest that this is a constitutional outrage when all that's happening is that there is a change in the assumption about anonymity, not an anonymity is already available. It is just who has to prove whether or not it should be granted. So I don't think and there's been a lot of hyperbole used in terms of this.

I accept that the media will make this argument. I don't deny that. And in fact, I agree that the police should be held accountable. That is not the issue. It is this very small group of people. And I'm going to try and address the point about evidence. The point was made, what evidence has been advanced. And I'm trying to address at least two things. The first point is that, of course, this was built on the Chris Kaba case. Frankly, I think the judge made the wrong decision about anonymity.

And the reason I believe that is, of course, Mr. Kaba was arrested, having been wanted connected to two firearms shootings linked to an organised crime gang who had access to firearms, and yet still put the officer at risk of any attacks by people who were connected to him by naming him. Bearing in mind that three years later, within three hours, the jury found him not guilty. So it's never for me a very strong case. But why did the judge order for the anonymity order to be lifted in these circumstances? And it was in those circumstances, as Baroness Cash mentioned, the reaction of firearms officers.

It was to do with two things the charging of the officer in the first place, but also the compound effect, eventually of the anonymity. I don't think, actually, that many of them lay their weapons down. There may have been a threat to because that was an emotional reaction. They didn't actually happen because they are honourable. People know that if they walk away, then nobody's there to help, so they will keep doing their job. On the whole, this is a very small group of people we're talking about that might be affected as suspects in these cases.

There's only about 5500 officers in England and Wales. They shoot dead over the last 20 years, on average, three people a year wound another two. It's a very rare event that police officers in the UK will shoot people, and it's been quite hard for me to find details about how often they've been charged with offences, but I estimate it's something of the order of 5 to 10 over the last 20 years. So it's quite a rare event. So even if this was to be agreed and, you know, the bill passes in the format that it is, there aren't that many people who are going to be affected by it.

I don't think the press has not intrusion, but there there accountability mechanism will be affected vastly. These officers all volunteer. They're not paid any more to do what they do. They can't be ordered to do what they do. We rely on them. About 60 million of us rely on 5000 to do what none of us can do, to go forward with a gun and deal with the situation that none of us want to face. And it's in that circumstance, I think, that they, if not a unique group, they're a very unusual group.

Even the military cannot do it unless the government would allow them to do that. So these are a pretty special group of people, and I would say that we need to support them. Now, I argue that there should be more support. I've argued about where we when we should charge them, but this was the singular measure that the government offered in response to the Chris Kaba case. But many others, we could have talked about the Anthony case I mentioned earlier, ten years. Then I find him not guilty.

Excuse me? The W80 case where an officer, having gone through ten years of inquiry, then had no case to answer before misconduct process. These are the cases that lodged in the minds of the officers. You have this task to do on our behalf, and you imagine in a .75 of a second that you've got to make your decision. You've got so many hanging on your shoulders saying, well, maybe make sure you do it right, because we'll come looking for you afterwards. And many of these officers never discharged their weapons.

I think last year in 2025, there were 17,000 incidents where a police firearm was deployed. But I've already mentioned how often they discharge the weapon. Very, very few times. They're not a trigger happy group. I do think they need our support. And this is just one of the mechanisms that can do it. And my final point all it is, is an assumption. It can be argued out. So I think the evidence for the change is one that the Chris Kaba case shows that judges can get it wrong, and perhaps they, like all of us, can make mistakes.

But probably more importantly, how do you prove that there's a genuine threat now when someone's charged? There's no such thing as perfect intelligence about whether these things are going to happen. We saw in the second Iraq War that intelligence is a variable feast. It's people analysing information. They have to try and give their best assessment of whether a threat exists. But surely we should give some leeway to the officer in the case because it's not only them, it's also the families.

Their families have gone through this for years as well. They live on the same address. Their kids go to the same schools and they are affected by it. And this Chris Kaba case, I've met the officer involved and the experience they've had over the years that he was under inquiry has been pretty awful. They had to move out for a while. They had to move, decide whether or not they permanently moved their home. And yet we all say, well, actually, this is just a point of principle.

This is a legal issue. It's not to them, this is their life. So I really I understand why the media make the argument. I understand why it's a legal issue that must be debated properly, but I honestly think this is a minor measure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might give some comfort to a brave group of people who we rely upon. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Very grateful. To the noble Lord for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reminding us of his late night work the other night, and I look forward to discussing that particular subject when we come particular subject when we come back to it on report. I'm also grateful to the noble Lord Lord grateful to the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe for bringing a police view and a practical police view to this very, very difficult debate. I come at this from a position. Essentially in favour of these
12:49
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
clauses not standing apart for the reasons so far advanced by my noble reasons so far advanced by my noble friend Lady Cash, my noble friend Lord Black, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It's a difficult question. Unquestionably. It's a difficult question. If it if it difficult question. If it if it weren't, we wouldn't be here. And we have as parliamentarians, as legislators to work out where the legislators to work out where the balance should lie between the desire for anonymity for police officers in these circumstances and the desire for openness, open justice and the ability for the public.

It's not just the press, but for the public as a whole to be able to see what is being done in their name in the court system. But I, I hope I don't go on for too long merely repeating what others have already said. But I do think it is worth reminding ourselves that the court's work on the basis of open justice and the public is entitled to watch, to read and to comment about trials and know who has been charged and prosecuted and with what result.

There are exceptions to protect national security and vulnerable witnesses, victims of sexual offences and children. And we have a regime for, first of all, providing for reporting restrictions. Secondly, for restricting public access to the courtroom and for holding all or part of some trials in in private. Thirdly, for withholding the name of witnesses by, for example, under a witness order under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. But a witness order under that provision is a special measure of the last practical resort, and requires the court to be vigorous in its consideration of the statutory hurdles that have to be overcome, and to ensure that the defendant is not irreparably disadvantaged or denied a fair trial.

And fourthly, we have within that regime provision for anonymity in investigations, for example, when considering fatal gang crimes involving the use of guns and knives by those aged 11 to 3030 years old, those police officers are human and I underline the word human. They are a human example of state power, and I underline state we respect, and we admire them for their often dangerous and selfless work. We know from our own work here in Parliament how vital police officers are for our own protection.

I was not far away from the scene of PC Palmer's murder in March 2017. He was unarmed and later awarded a posthumous George Medal. But there were armed officers there who had to kill a PC Palmer's murderer. I heard those shots as I walked along the colonnade in New Palace Yard, from my office in portcullis House, to take part in a division in the other place. It may well be that the noble Lord Lord Hanson was going through the same experience as I did, and I was grateful then, as I am to this day, to the police, men and women on duty that day who ushered me and other members of the Other place to safety, regardless of their own.

But it is in the final analysis, a matter of judgement on which side of this particular argument. We need to come down on the basis on the side of anonymity or open justice. I bear in mind the need for armed police officers and their families to be protected from reprisals, as I think the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe mentioned. I bear in mind the operational need not to discourage volunteers suitably qualified to become armed response officers or armed officers, and we have been reminded just today, this morning, of the case of Martyn Blake, which created, I think, the genesis of these particular clauses in the bill.

But I also bear in mind the constitutional and public policy demands, and I wouldn't describe it as a constitutional outrage. This is a perfectly rational debate about which side of a difficult line one wishes to land. It's not a constitutional outrage to do one thing or the other, it's just advancing an argument. But I bear in mind the constitutional and public policy demands for open justice, for public trust and transparency in a justice system that applies to us all without creating different categories of defendant as a question of blanket rule, blanket rules of the sort envisaged by clauses one five, two, two, 155 are, I suggest, best to be avoided where a stronger focussed case by case approval approach can be achieved, and is, in my experience, already achieved under our current system.

In the last few days, of course, we've seen the ice officer shoot that woman driving her car in Minnesota, and I suggest here. And of course, I've only seen the news footage that Ice officer would be prosecuted for murder, subject to any defence he could advance. But that case aside, we face the problem of some lawyers and campaigners using every police shooting as the basis of an anti-police pylon, or for some other political campaign which they happen to support.

In short, if we are, as I hope we will, to be sceptical about clauses 152 and 155 standing part of the Bill, we must prevent the appalling hunting parties against the police. Let us then pause and reflect before agreeing to these clauses. I daresay we won't make a decision today other than that the issue advanced by my noble friend Lord Black will be withdrawn. But I think we do have a little time between now and report for all of us, and we come here with the best of intentions and goodwill for all of us to have a think a little more carefully about the practical solution to this, and whether we need to use the blunderbuss of legislation, although whether we can still apply the judicial discretion, vigorously applied and well argued for in each separate case to see where justice can be found.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hannay sits down. Just as I respect his opinion for obvious reasons. One issue he didn't reasons. One issue he didn't address, which was one of my arguments for why this these clauses should stem, is the clauses should stem, is the difficulty of proving the threat at the beginning of an investigation, because it's not straightforward. You have to say that actually someone out there is going to kill this officer or trying to attack them. There's a threat to them in them.

There's a threat to them in some way. And of course, we all make our best attempts to assess whether that's accurate or not. But surely the present system, which he describes as a blanket arrangement, but actually there's only an assumption that can be removed. And in the Kaba case was removed. It leaves the officer at risk of that of that decision being automatic, i.e. you know, to be named. If they can't prove otherwise, why should they bear the risk of being named when in fact the reverse could allow, first of all, an assumption they wouldn't be named.

If later that changes, then you can name them. What you can never do is name someone, then introduce anonymity. So it's a one way valve that surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the law might help to respect. The very matter that the noble Lord is bringing up is the very Lord is bringing up is the very sort of discussion that ought to be had in front of the judge. No had in front of the judge. No prosecutor, or no one acting on behalf of a police officer who behalf of a police officer who wishes to maintain his anonymity, would presumably advance an argument unless there was some argument unless there was some basis for it.

So if you go in front of the judge and say, I'm generally fearful that just because he's a police officer who bears arms, he is likely to be the victim of reprisal. I think you probably need to do a bit better than that, but I suspect nobody would go in front of the judge and make that argument unless they had something better than that. And so in the usual run of things, I suspect there will be information. It may not be information that the court would wish the world at large to know about.

It could be intelligence evidence. It could be other information which the both the applicant, the applicant, police officer or the applicant prosecutor and indeed the judge would agree should be kept private. That surely can be done. Now. We have all sorts of national security cases where evidence is is not disclosed to the to the world at large. All I ask for is let us just think a little bit further than this. It may well be that at the end of the day, we'll come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe.

And as the government does in its its clauses. But I have yet to be persuaded that we've got to the right answer today.
13:00
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I rise to strongly, strongly support keeping these clauses on support keeping these clauses on the face of the Bill. I, I admire the moral courage of Ministers in this government for putting these clauses in the bill. Despite the well made arguments against doing so. My Lords, my calculation is that in central London, a rampaging terrorist life expectancy is about nine minutes. Not surprisingly, these events are infrequent because they are not likely to be successful.

This is primarily due to the fortitude, courage and training of armed police officers of the Metropolitan Police. My Lords, I have been on duty in an operational military headquarters in the field overseas when we had to deal with life threatening emergencies. There is nearly always an information form and it is exceptionally difficult for commanders to understand what is actually happening on the ground. The same will apply to police control rooms during a terrorist attack. I understand the difficulties.

I have been there. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Police and other forces usually manage to suppress an attack within a few minutes. We should all be really grateful. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that if there are enough such incidents, perceived or real problems will arise. We only need to think of the difficulties that arose on the Bondi Beach tragedy. We must accept that things might not go as desired. My Lords, I'm not a lawyer, but the committee will be aware that I have engaged in armed military operations.

I knew that I was accountable for my actions as well as any troops under my command. That was an obvious risk, but one as a prudent risk taker, I was prepared to accept because I was confident that I would be fairly and promptly dealt with if something went wrong. I'm not convinced. The same applies with armed police operations. We have already discussed delays and the disciplinary machinery in the last group, and unfortunately I was late attending.

But I agreed with everything that the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe said. I must apologise for not being at the start. I think that in questionable police firearms cases, the CPS have a very difficult task of balancing two conflicting factors. On one hand, the very low probability of conviction. In these cases. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many armed officers on on duty have been convicted of these offences, and that was the only consideration. It would be very difficult to authorise a prosecution because the prospect of a conviction would be very, very low.

But on the other hand, we do need to secure public confidence that the police and the state are not above the law and that the evidence against the relevant police officer is tested by a jury in court. If we do not agree these clauses, we run the risk of prudent risk takers declining to be trained or to keep their firearms ticket. And the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe touched on the use of the military instead of the police. My Lords, the military are not correctly trained to undertake civil policing duties.

They can in certain circumstances be used, but that is when the military are going to apply overwhelming military force to resolve the issue. My Lords, this could in turn, this lack of willingness of volunteers to volunteer for firearms duty could in turn result in standards being surreptitiously lowered in order to meet demand for authorised firearms officers, leading to precisely the opposite effect to the one we desire. Now, I'm sure the Minister will will deny that there's any possibility of standards being surreptitiously lowered, but I can assure the noble Lords in the military not so much in firearms training, but in other areas we are surreptitiously lowering the standards.

So this is a very, very real risk. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, touched on existing recruiting difficulties, my Lords, when regrettably, an armed police officer has to do his or her duty, we cannot allow the lives of his or her family and friends to be turned upside down by media attention that serves no useful purpose.
13:05
13:06
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the noble Lord Garnier. This is a moment. As legislators, This is a moment. As legislators, we've got to pause and ask, where does the balance really lie? So it isn't for me an either or, because when legislators are trying to legislate, they mustn't pass the burden of coming to terms with a rather very difficult conundrum to someone else. Resolve. I'll be quite unhappy that we think, yes, leave it to the judge to decide.

If they go for anonymity. The courts could then be seen by some people as not on the side of the citizen, but on the side of a few. I think we got resolve it. We've got to come to a common mind where we think this should be done. And it seems to me, do not burden the courts to actually come to a decision. Legislators should make up their mind on what way they want to go. I'm persuaded also by Lord Hogan-howe and his arguments.

I've always been in favour of open courts. I've always been in favour of trial by jury. I've always been in favour that no citizen is above the law. So we should all have this question of equality before the law. But that sort of argument, unfortunately, sometimes can ignore circumstances that need to be differentiated, not because we don't want fairness and equality, but if you just blindly go down in a particular road, you you may cause a greater injustice.

That's why I'm personally I'm not in favour of people who are really so motorist and they keep their morals. And if you're not very careful, you could end up with an injustice. So I would like to suggest to the movers of these amendments and the government, in their brevity, bravery in bringing and wanting this particular way of putting it on the face of the Bill. There are further conversation needs to be had. How do we resolve? Because there are some who clearly, and I be one of those who would like to defend police officers, who've got to take a split second to do something without a lot of thought in terms of they see a danger and they want actually neutralise that danger, not like in Minnesota.

I don't think that there was any danger there, and I wouldn't want to defend those kinds of actions. Most of our armed police officers, and as again, Lord Hogan-Howe has given us the figures, actually, the statistics are very, very low. And in those very unfortunate cases where that has happened, I think that most of our armed police officers actually very disciplined. They're well trained. But you always in life end up with a risk which you hadn't anticipated. So I would want to go in the way of had I Lord Berkeley argue about if somebody took a decision because they saw greater danger and they took somebody out, I can tell you the media and other people will focus on their family, not on the decision that was taken.

And we who are legislators can't actually ignore the difficulty that raises for families. I don't think that volunteers will immediately disappear if these clauses are not made part of the measure. Because part of the bill I. I still think there are people who, for the sake of security and the well-being of society, will still continue to volunteer, but you're going to make it more difficult. So may I please plead with all of us that Lord Garnier think for me, capsulise what my thoughts were, I'm still in a quandary.

Will I vote for this or that? So I just hope that the movers of these amendments will withdraw them, knowing there's still a Report stage to come. So that is clear conversation. And then we can all make our mind where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this is going to lie. Can I just make an observation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just make an observation that the question is, do we agree these clauses in the bill or not? these clauses in the bill or not? If we don't agree the clauses in the bill, they'll fall out of the bill and then we can't consider them at a later stage. So if we them at a later stage. So if we want to consider them at a later stage, we must agree them today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage, we must agree them today. My Lords, it's with great trepidation that I rise to speak in a very briefly, having heard such powerful legal voices discussion discussing these issues, and I hugely respect the legal expertise that we're faced with in the House.
13:11
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
But on the basis of what we've heard and the way the government has approached this, I have to say has approached this, I have to say that I am minded to support the government in the initiatives that government in the initiatives that they are taking here, and I feel we really ought to support these highly disciplined firearms highly disciplined firearms officers. We are living in the era officers. We are living in the era of lawfare and of the courts being used to, not to the advantage of those who are seeking to protect us all.

We are very fortunate in this country, unlike in other countries that enable Lord Garnier mentioned, to have a situation where the discharge of police firearms is very, very rare eventuality. Those who hold that responsibility are highly trained, highly disciplined and highly motivated individuals. And if there is a situation where they do end up in a court of law because of the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duty, then I would I believe that we should support them until there is a decision of that court.

And of course, everything changes at that point. But for them to be endangered and also to have the threat of being endangered, I did listen to very, very carefully to what the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe said about how difficult it is to describe that threat in the beginning, and you can't go backwards on this, my Lords, in this very specific and very rare eventuality, I believe that we should give those who put their lives in danger to protect us the benefit of the doubt.
13:13
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord. >> My Lord. >> I may be wrong, but I had never understood that until there was a understood that until there was a vote. Anything in the bill disappeared. Consequently, unless disappeared. Consequently, unless I'm wrong, we unless we vote on these three clauses, they will remain until report. Consequently, I don't entirely understand what the noble Lord aptly was telling us. But if I may move on, say extremely briefly, and unlike I have to say, some noble Lords, I genuinely mean briefly the the noble and learned Lord Phillips has pointed out this is a profoundly important issue.

And secondly, that hard cases don't make good law. I am very unhappy at the idea that anyone should be automatically given anonymity in a situation in which they have behaved in a way where there is at least a possibility that they may be guilty of some crime, I would prefer to see the situation as it remains today, but I also listened and think it's a very sensible suggestion from the noble and learned Lord Garnier that the poor should give us time to discuss rather further how on earth this should be dealt with.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. From these benches we support a carefully framed presumption of anonymity for firearms officers facing criminal charges, but we facing criminal charges, but we believe it should be tightly drawn and subject to clear judicial safeguards, giving automatic an safeguards, giving automatic an amenity to firearm. Officers who face criminal charges would mark a
13:15
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
face criminal charges would mark a major and highly sensitive change. It deserves careful and measured consideration and scrutiny. To strike the right balance. The public must have confidence that wrongdoing by officers will be dealt with fairly and transparently, but equally, and I think this is very important. Officers must feel assured that if they act in good faith and follow their training, the system will protect them, not punish them. We welcome the wider provisions of this bill to strengthen police accountability, particularly those speeding up investigations by the IOPC.

But we understand why firearms officers seek reassurance. These are exceptionally difficult and high risk roles where hesitation can have tragic consequences. With fewer than 6000 operational firearms officers across England and Wales, those concerns cannot be lightly dismissed. But at the same time, we recognise the force of the arguments made by those noble Lords who support Lord Pannick amendment and accept that a broad, inflexible and amenity system sits uneasily with the principle of open justice. The public have a legitimate right to know when those entrusted with lethal powers are alleged to have acted unlawfully.

Our preference is for a statutory presumption in favour of anonymity in firearms cases rebuttable, where the court is satisfied that identification is necessary in the interests of justice, justice or public confidence, we should trust our judges to apply a clear statutory test, protecting officers where necessary, while safeguarding the principles of open justice on which confidence and policing depends. A narrowly tailored presumption, coupled with robust judicial oversight can provide the reassurance firearms officers need without creating a perception of a two tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else.

Of course, rebuilding trust in policing must be our shared priority, and ultimately that rests not on secrecy, but on transparency, fairness and confidence that accountability will apply equally to all. Thankfully, fatal police shootings are rare, and it's even rarer still for such cases to reach the courts in these exceptional, highly charged cases, a carefully limited presumption of anonymity is a reasonable and proportionate step to keep skilled officers in these vital roles while upholding open justice.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yet. My Lords. As I. Think we all agree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think we all agree. This is a profoundly important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a profoundly important issue and one in which there is realistically no perfectly right realistically no perfectly right answer. But let's start with the position that it remains one of the greatest triumphs of British policing, that to this day, we do not routinely have armed police officers. The image, which was envisaged by Sir Robert Peel when he established the Metropolitan Police, that of policing by consent and the avoidance of a militarised police force. And he had the example of what he saw on continental Europe at the time.

That image has endured. I have listened anxiously to the speeches today, which have been thoughtful and balanced. But we start on this side. With the view, Her Majesty's opposition, that on balance, the approach of these. And sections one five, clauses one five, 2 to 1, five, five is the right one. I'll say more about that in a moment. Whilst the vast majority of police officers in this country are
13:19
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
unarmed, we know that in order to protect the public, a few thousand brave officers volunteer to put brave officers volunteer to put themselves in harm's way and become authorised firearms officers. The authorised firearms officers. The latest figures show that as at 31st March 2025, there were a total of 6367 firearms officers in England 6367 firearms officers in England and Wales. Of those, 5753 were operationally deployable. That represented a decrease of 108, or 2%, from the previous year.

There is a downward trend in the number of armed police officers, and that should be a matter of concern for all of us. It has to be arrested. It is not hard to see why fewer and fewer officers are willing to take on this role. The recent prosecution and events surrounding Martyn Blake demonstrate what can go wrong throughout Martyn Blake became public property. He was left in limbo for two years whilst awaiting an iOPC investigation, a CPS decision and then a murder trial.

He was eventually acquitted. As we've heard in October 2024. But despite that acquittal, the IOPC then announced they were launching a further investigation for gross misconduct that remains unresolved. All of that, he has been publicly known to everyone. The general secretary, Matt Cain, the general secretary of the Metropolitan Police Federation, has criticised that in the strongest terms with which we on this side broadly agree. The concern and criticisms which he raised has real world consequences.

Police officers feel that their reasonable use of force may be treated disproportionately or unreasonably after the event, in a manner which does not recognise the pressures that they face when they make split second decisions. During the trial of Martyn Blake, dozens of officers handed in their weapons. There was serious concern that in the event of a guilty verdict, police officers across the country would be faced with real severe shortages of armed officers. The publicity given to all this must be an aggravating factor for Mr.

Blake, so we have to protect these police officers. We have heard powerful speeches, first of all, from the proposer, my noble friend, the proposer Lord Black, the noble friend Baroness Cash, and from others, not least the noble and learned Lord Phillips of Worthman Travers and Lord Garnier, either in full support or asking us to look very carefully at these amendments with a view to doing something along those lines. There are important issues. Open justice. The question of whether or not there should be special treatment for police officers, and concerns about unintended consequences.

But I remind the House of the provisions in clause 1523. First of all, a the court must cause the following information to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court in each case, unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. And there's the identification details. The court must also give a reporting direction in respect of the defendant, if one does not already have effect unless satisfied, it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

So what it is doing is putting in place a presumption which can be rebutted. I must say that looking at that, I personally feel that it is rather broad and that it would be in practice helpful for the courts and those who have to deal with applications to lift that presumption, to act on that presumption, and to lift that bar. If this was put rather more clearly with some examples, I don't have any to put before the House today.

But I came to that view when listening to the debate, and I think I would invite the government to think very carefully about whether something should be done about the terms there, which might go quite a way to addressing the concerns of those who are legitimately concerned about the wrong sort of special treatment for police officers and open justice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more generally. For sitting. Down and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Allowing me to intervene. opposition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition. provisions. But I ask him this question. How is a judge. If. This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This. Becomes law, going to change. His or her approach to the issue of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. Anonymity from the position that prevailed before this change? How

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is it going to alter things? Well, he's going to start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he's going to start assuming he is. The judge is going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assuming he is. The judge is going to start. From the position that. Unless there's an application to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unless there's an application to the contrary, the bar against the contrary, the bar against publication is in force. I would what I'm asking government to consider in a time before we come back to report, is whether guidance can be developed and something can be put into the bill, which addresses the concerns about it being too difficult and imprecise to address in practice. And that is something which can be addressed at Report stage. We can listen to that and see, but at the moment, our view is that we support the provisions in the bill.

But I do advance. Anxieties, I wouldn't say anxieties, about how it will work in practice, about whether, in fact, it will be an absolute bar, which is clearly, one hopes, not what is intended. I hope this isn't. These words are not there. Just as some sort of fig leaf. This is not an easy position. We heard, I thought, powerful and very persuasive speeches. Likewise on the other side from Lord Carter of Haslemere calling for support for our officers and from Lord Hogan-Howe, who perhaps more than any of us, knows what is truly involved for these police officers.

So we do support the clauses as they are. And I remind the House that as we stand here debating the issue of anonymity for firearms officers outside this building, we are being protected by members of that very special group in and around this building. They work every day, day in and day out to keep us safe. We are only able to continue with our important work of legislating because of the safety which armed police officers provide.

So we owe those who protect us a real degree of protection, and they must be spared, assuming they're acting in good faith from the anxiety that if something goes wrong and they and I say goes wrong because it goes wrong, because they have to shoot, that is what goes wrong. They feel they have to shoot, and they mustn't then be left exposed like Martyn Blake was. We've seen there how that went wrong. On that basis, we, for the time being, at least support this bill.

And these clauses support these clauses.
13:29
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I thank the noble Lord Lord Pannick for giving notice of his opposition that clauses 152 to 1 opposition that clauses 152 to 1 five five stand part of the Bill and the noble Lord Lord Black Brentwood, for moving the amendment Brentwood, for moving the amendment and allowing this important and interesting debate. And I acknowledge from the outset that the government agrees that these are not easy issues. Clauses 152 to 155 largely stand or fall together, creating a bespoke system for a very small and discrete category of defendants in criminal trials, namely, authorised firearms officers who are charged with offences arising from the discharge of their weapon during the course of their official duties.

My Lords, notwithstanding, the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe comments about lawyers made during the course of the debate on the last group of lawyers, of which, of course I am one, I agree with much of what he has said, and the starting point for the government is that armed police officers perform a unique and high risk role. They are trained to use lethal force on behalf of the state to protect the public, often in fast moving and dangerous situations. This puts them personally at risk of death or serious injury every day in the course of their duties.

They deserve our thanks and admiration for putting themselves in harm's way to protect the public, and that, as a point made by many of your Lordships, includes you and me, because many of those with whom they engage are involved in serious crime, it exposes them and their families to the risk of retribution. So that is the government's starting point. But there is another equally important principle in play. My Lords, we do not have secret trials in this country. The principles of open justice and the ability for the press to report on cases continues to be one of our proudest and most carefully and jealously guarded traditions.

And I pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Cash, for whom I have the utmost respect for putting in impassioned terms the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. So why, then, has the government decided to introduce a presumption of anonymity in trials for authorised firearms officers? Well, this limited presumption is being introduced due to the unique nature of firearms officer's roles and the risks that arise from them being identified during court proceedings. What marks them out from other categories of defendant is that these are not risks merely to their reputation, but to their lives, and these are not theoretical risks.

Far arms officers who have been charged with an offence can face very serious death threats and other forms of intimidation, and the threats don't stop just with them. They are extended to their families as well. This real and present, the real and present nature of this danger cannot be ignored. And I want to give two illustrations of incidents which demonstrate just how extreme the consequences can be for those who serve as firearms officers. In one case, a contract for murder was issued against an officer who had acted in the line of duty, but was later found and was later found to have acted entirely within the law.

In another, a bounty was placed on an officer who, as things turned out, had also been lawfully carrying out their responsibilities. So the threat is not theoretical. It is a stark reality, and the safety of our officers and those they love must not be compromised. Some of these officers may later be found not guilty by a jury, but if they and their families have faced real and credible threats by then, the damage is done. So now I come to why the time has come for action to be taken.

My Lords, the National Police Chiefs Council has said that firearms officers are fearful of the consequences and processes for them if they are involved in a death or serious injury case because of what has happened to colleagues, mostly so because of how it has played out in the media, the noble Lord Lord Black and the noble Lady Baroness Cash have made the point that the courts already have the power to order a reporting restrictions in a case where the court judges that disclosure of a defendant's identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to life.

So they ask, why is a presumption necessary? And our answer is this it must be remembered as the noble Lord. Lord Hogan-Howe has pointed out that police officers volunteer for armed roles and are not compelled to undertake such duties, nor are they paid more in order to do so. And data from armed policing shows the start of a slow decline in those wishing to serve as armed officers. The Armed Policing Attrition and Retention document records that since 2019, there had been a loss of 583 armed officers.

That's an 8.8% reduction. My Lords, everyone hearing this should be worried. We rely on these officers to keep ourselves and those we love, as well as our fellow citizens safe. And so we, a Labour government, are persuaded and we have decided to act. We have concluded that we need to strike a balance between the safety and security of our brave firearms officers and their families, who are presumed innocent unless or until convicted by a court of law, and are inviolable, inviolable principles of open justice and freedom of the press.

My Lord, I venture to suggest that that is what these provisions achieve. The important things to note are. First, once a jury has decided that the defendant is guilty, then of course their identity will be made public. Second, these provisions only establish a presumption of anonymity during the trial. The judge at any stage has the ability to order that part, or all of the defendant's identifying characteristics should be revealed. So it only changes where we start, not necessarily where we end up.

And thirdly, the media and others will be informed, as is usual, of cases where there is a reporting restriction in place and journalists and others will be able to make representations to the judge as to why they say that the identity should be known at an early stage to help the judge decide where the balance should be struck. In any individual case, I remind your Lordships of the old truism about the difference between what is in the public interest and matters in which the public is interested.

It is judges who make decisions of this kind every day, and are best placed to do so. But I add this reassurance that where a judge concludes that narrower steps will suffice, then the court will only order the minimum necessary. I can say to your Lordships, from my own experience and knowing my former judicial colleagues as I do, that they take freedom of the press to report trials very seriously indeed. And the two distinguished former judges who have spoken in this debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss have shown just that, I venture to say.

So, my Lords, open justice remains the starting point. This measure introduces a narrow rebuttable presumption for a small, clearly defined cohort. Proceedings will remain public. Evidence will be tested in open court, and judicial reasons are given. Only the defendant's details may be withheld where necessary until the point of conviction. It expressly allows the court to lift the anonymity wherever it be, contrary to the interests of justice, for anonymity to remain, my Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that this is a difficult issue that needs to be approached with care and where everyone should be moderate in the way that they approach it.

But we say that this measure does not compromise transparency or judicial independence. All it does is to ensure that officers are not exposed to undue risk before the facts have been tested and decided upon by a court. It's about fairness, it's about safety, and it's about maintaining confidence in policing and justice. So I hope that my explanation of these clauses has gone some way to reassuring your Lordships. But it would, of course, as always, be a pleasure to meet the noble Lord Lord Black the noble Lord, Lord Lord Faulks the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier.

Again, I think this is the third time in 48 hours that I've offered to meet him. And of course, the representatives of the News Media Association, who've written to me at least twice upon this important topic, and I would be more than happy to discuss all of their concerns. But in the meantime, I invite the noble Lord Lord Black to withdraw his opposition to these clauses. Standing apart.
13:38
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady very much for her comments. Indeed, the offer for her comments. Indeed, the offer to meet. I suspect she's involved in a very large number of meetings at the moment, and we will try not at the moment, and we will try not to add too much to the burden. This has been a very good debate on a difficult subject, but one, as we have heard from a number of people, is of profound importance. We have to get the balance right. As the noble Lord Lord Garnier said.

And that's what this debate has shown. I just want to make three very quick points, if I may. The first is to underline what we've heard a number of times in this debate. Of course, we all have huge admiration and respect for firearms officers. They are a very brave group of people who do a great deal here to protect us, and we are in their debt. And of course they deserve protection. The points that we have tried to make are that they have it at the moment.

The difficulty with these clauses is made automatic and that means, as the noble Lord, Lord Falk said, it's not always going to be easy to rebut. There is an issue as far as the media is concerned, of course, that a presumption of anonymity could also mean that it is possible that the media isn't put on proper notice and therefore unable to challenge the presumption, if indeed those media outlets possess the resources to do so. If it's left to potluck that reporters become aware, then open justice does become eroded because the media hasn't got chance to consider if it should contest the presumption.

The second point that I'd make the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and others have said, of course this is. Thankfully, there are very small numbers of cases such as this which ever come to court. And it's not. Therefore, it's not a matter about that. This is a matter, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said, and the noble and lonely lady, Lady Butler-sloss said it's a matter of high principle in my experience. Open justice and press freedom don't perish because of obvious assaults against them, but because of apparently innocuous incremental changes such as this and the provision of special cases.

The point is, which my noble friend Lady Cash made, that if anonymity becomes the default, it's openness, which then has to be justified. And that, I think, is the end of a very slippery slope, which is one of the things that we can talk about when we meet. My final point again, just to echo a point that the noble Lady, Lady Cash made, at the end of the day, this is a point about state power and the exercise of state power.

We chip away at scrutiny of that at our peril. To do so, we should, I believe, have overwhelming evidence. And I appreciate what the noble Lady has said in her summing up. But I don't believe still that that case has been made. A number of noble Lords have said, we have time before report to consider this further. It is a matter of huge importance. Let's take the time before report to do so. But in the meantime, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendments. For the convenience of the committee. I should point out that committee. I should point out that there isn't, in fact an amendment to withdraw. We are debating clause to withdraw. We are debating clause stand part. The question is at clause 152 stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion take As many as that opinion take content contrary, not content the contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is clause one five 3154 and 1557 part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion say content contrary not content.

The contents have it after clause 155. Amendment 423. Already debated, not moved, not moved, and amendment 423A Lord Hague Lord Hogan-Howe not moved. The question is clauses one five 6 to 1 six four. Part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion will say content not content. Me contents have it. The question is schedule 19 B the 19th schedule of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content The contents have it question is clause 165 part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content.

The contents have it in clause 166 amendment 424 already spoken to move, move. Formally, the question is the question is that amendment 424 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is clause 166 as amended. Stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content, not content. The contents habit after clause 166. Amendment 425 Baroness Chakrabarti.
13:43
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise slowly to allow the appropriate exodus, and I have the appropriate exodus, and I have 45 and 46 in in this group they are probing amendments only, and therefore I don't propose to detain the committee for too long, not least as these follow the rather excellent previous debate for which I commend the noble Lord Black of Brentwood. And really all all the participants and and many of the participants and and many of the sentiments in that discussion are, are sentiments that informed my thinking behind these two amendments.

So. So let me explain. Like other noble Lords, I have a huge amount of respect for the overwhelming majority of police officers in this country, best exemplified perhaps by those who keep us safe outside and inside this building, and indeed those former officers who contribute so ably to debates in your Lordships House. But unfortunately, that is not the whole story of policing. And I reflect, my Lords, that this is my 30th year of engagement in, in, in criminal justice policy, because it was in January 1996 that I entered the Home Office as a as a young lawyer and subsequently was at the National Council for Civil Liberties, and for the last nine and a bit years in in your Lordships House, and in every one of those years there have been at least one there's been at least one criminal justice measure, and sometimes more than one.

And year on, year on year, my Lords, those measures have increased police power. Where there are stop and search powers, anti-terror powers, public order powers and so on. And we continue to debate all of those. And the same is true of the bill before this committee, but very, very rarely in those three decades have I seen equivalent measures aimed at constraining police power, or indeed of attempting to renew and rebuild vital public confidence when things go wrong.

And so these two probing amendments are there really just to provide a little balance and to remind the committee that public confidence in policing is not where it needs to be. And I'm sorry to say this, but that is in no small part due to major scandals, major scandals of recent years. It's now nearly five years since Sarah Everard was kidnapped and raped and murdered by a serving police officer. And now, nearly three years since our colleague, our esteemed colleague, the noble Lady Baroness Casey of Blackstock, wrote her report for the Metropolitan Police.

And yet, as I say, we I rarely see a new measure before before the House suggesting ways of improving confidence. And so that's what these two probing amendments are aimed at addressing. Now the first 45 suggests that service as a police officer that's present or past service should be an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing. If I were to venture a guess as to what might be in my noble friend minister's advice on speaking note, my guess would be he's checking my my my guess would be this.

This amendment is unnecessary because. Because sentences would already, of course, take into account service as a police officer. When when a police officer. I'm not talking about the brave and wonderful police officers we were discussing in the previous group, but those who have been convicted and in particular convicted of very serious offences, including the gravest ones like Wayne Cousins, the speaking note will say this is unnecessary. Sentences already have the discretion to to treat this as an aggravating factor.

And of course, speaking note is quite correct in that respect. However, it's already a criminal offence to assault anyone, but we make special additional provision for assaulting an emergency worker and a police officer and we do that, some would say benignly, to improve public public confidence and, and, and confidence of those vital workers. Some would say it's slightly performative, but nonetheless, that is one side of the equation. And the other side of the equation is that the public should understand that it is a very, very serious matter, and with power comes responsibility.

And for a serving all past officer to behave as some have done in recent years, is a very serious matter indeed, and must be viewed as such. If we believe in the rule of law, and we are to have public confidence in policing, and of course, in 4 to 5 two, it is suggested that a court deciding the aggravation isn't required in a particular in a particular sentence for a police officer would explain why, but 4 to 6 goes further because this is about police pensions, because one of the things which will rankle, and of the many things which will rankle with the public when a police officer is convicted of a very serious offence, it's the idea that they might continue to enjoy, or that they and their family might continue to enjoy the public sector pension, despite that terrible abuse of trust that led to the serious criminal offence.

And so this probing amendment suggests that that a that a Crown court, when sentencing an officer, should have the power to order forfeiture of the the employer contribution to the pension. Now, of course, the current position is that there can be forfeiture, of course, and it is only the employer contribution that again, this is done not really in public. This is done at the discretion of the PCC or other or other police authority and doesn't come, therefore, with the public understanding that would come with a Crown Court judge, say in an infamous case like that of Sarah Everard's murderer, but another serious case of abuse of power, I think it would be better, arguably, for public confidence if the Crown Court judge in that sentencing hearing could say, and having considered all the police and mitigation and the other the other submissions before me, the public contribution to your pension shall be forfeit.

And you may, of course, appeal that in the normal way as you appeal any part of the Crown Court sentence. So that is the that's the thinking behind these two. As I said, they're probing amendments only. But I do think that whilst it is right that there are appropriate criminal offences, there are appropriate police powers. They move with the times. And the last debate we heard very eloquently the need, some would argue, to shield brave police officers. That's all well and good.

But the other side of the equation, with power comes responsibility. And when sacred trust is breached, not just as in the Everard case, but what about that Panorama documentary of last autumn, undercover in the police documentary, set in a London police station where we saw the levels of racism and misogyny and bullying and physical abuse of power that our colleague Baroness Casey warned about when there is that breach of a sacred and vital trust. That confidence needs to be rebuilt because it will serve none of us, including most police officers, the public confidence to be undermined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in that way. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 166. Insert the new clause services a police officer aggravating factor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in criminal sentencing. Amendment 45. I am never sure what a probing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am never sure what a probing amendment means, because surely all of our amendments are probing and I certainly would support both of certainly would support both of these amendments at Report stage, because I think they're actually quite crucial. And although I'm vastly older than the noble Lady, Lady Chakrabarti, I have been working on this two for quite a long time, but only two and a half decades. And I can tell you the amount of police officers who have been in some way found guilty of a
13:53
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
crime and yet still get their police pension and get all the benefits of having been a police officer for some years, however officer for some years, however badly it's ended, really is annoying. Now, most police officers annoying. Now, most police officers do a very, very difficult job. I'm very appreciative of that and I very appreciative of that and I understand the problems and and they do it well. But when someone abuses that role, the damage is much, much greater. For public trust.

It's wider than any single case. Trust in policing depends on people believing that no one is above the law. And the noble Lady Baroness Cash in the previous debate made, made the point that the rule of law is for all of us, and I will be bringing that issue up again when we get to the public, the the public wants it. Bill on. Yeah. Thank you very much. The. Yes. And because of course, at the moment the rule of law is not for us all, and it's exemplified by the way that we treat police in some, in some cases.

So on the on the issue of pensions, why does the government prefer decisions about pension forfeiture to be taken later behind closed doors rather than in open court, where reasons are given and can be tested on appeal? If a judge has heard all the evidence in a criminal case involving a police officer, has seen the harm done, has seen the abuse of trust, why does the government think that a judge should have no say at all over a publicly funded police pension? I do ask this out of long experience, because we've been told for decades now that existing systems are enough, or that reforms are coming, and clearly that isn't happening.

And I personally would like to see, instead of these little baby steps, I would like to see a bold, straightforward move towards the kind of accountability that people can see and understand time and time again in cases of serious police misconduct, the consequences remain unclear and invisible to the public. From the public's point of view, the current system makes very little sense. Some serious criminal convictions by police officers fall outside the pensions rule altogether, simply because they don't meet a narrow legal definition.

So I'd be grateful if the Minister could explain why judges who hear the evidence are excluded, and why transparency in court is still seen as a step too far. Now, when this Labour government got elected, I really hoped for some changes in the way that we do apply a sense of fairness to to the whole of our legal system. And quite honestly, the Labour government has disappointed me very badly. It's no better than. Than this, than this side of the chamber.

And and as the noble Lady, Lady Chakrabarti said, we've been waiting a long time for this, and it really is a Labour government that should put it right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, both these amendments seek to sharpen the consequences for police officers serving or retired, who commit criminal offences. High profile cases and offences. High profile cases and damning reports have exposed toxic elements of policing culture, eroding public trust. Yet the vast majority of police officers do an excellent job and are let down by a
13:57
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
excellent job and are let down by a small minority. Recent cases highlight public expectations that the law should rightly demand higher standards of personal integrity from police officers and, at the very least, adherence to the law of the land. There is also no question that public confidence in Policing's ability to police its own is fragile. While the latest figures from the Independent Office for police Conduct show record high complaints, over a quarter of the public lack confidence in the organisation itself, most cannot even describe what it does.

While nearly half distrust the police complaints system. That should really give us pause for thought, because that's really quite serious. While officers are seen to evade scrutiny or punishment, trust erodes further. This has major repercussions for those doing the job properly, because many members of the public then say, well, they're all the same, aren't they? I fully accept the noble Lady's argument that more can and should be done. Amendment 45 would create a rebuttable presumption that police service can be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

This rightly recognises the unique betrayal of public trust when those entrusted to uphold the law instead break it. I do, however, have a concern that in marginal cases, being a police officer could flip from helping to reduce the sentence. As somebody who served the public to becoming an automatic burden, amendment for 26 goes further, granting courts the power to forfeit a sizeable chunk of an offender's police pension, this could serve as a highly effective deterrent. However, I worry on two counts.

First, that it could discourage quality recruits who fear that one mistake could destroy the lifetime financial security of them and their family, and second, that it could entail taking away pension benefits that the officer has already earned fairly during what were presumably good years of service. These amendments definitely merit serious consideration, but they also focus on symptoms rather than causes. From these benches, we want to see the government go further to strengthen the front line of police misconduct systems, vetting that catches risks early and misconduct processes that are swift, transparent and trusted.

Only then will sentencing reforms like this land with any amount of force.
14:00
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> My Lords, amendments 45 and 46. In the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Chakrabarti, both relate to the criminal sentencing of or serving or retired police officers. We on this side of the House cannot support them. These amendments are, of course, well intentioned and we understand whether they will. Baroness is coming from. But we believe they will cause more problems than the issues they are trying to address. I do not see, for example, that they would have had any impact on the behaviour of the officer in the Everard murder, or indeed in other cases of police misconduct.

Turning first to amendment 45, which would create a rebuttable presumption that current or former police officer should have their service as a police officer treated as an aggravating factor when sentencing for criminal offence. We, like the noble Baroness, believe, of course, that police officers should be held to a high standard. Abuses of power should be treated with the utmost seriousness, but the amendment is far too wide and it risks creating unintended outcomes. Sentencing should, as far as is reasonably possible, be a specific exercise based on the facts of the particular case before the court present.

The courts already have the ability to treat abuse of position, of trust or of authority as an aggravating factor, where relevant. This will allow for judges to distinguish between offences that may have been connected to an individual's role as a police officer, and those that are completely independent of it. They should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Amendment 45 would apply regardless of whether the offence had any connection to police service at all, resulting in the inclusion of offences that were wholly unconnected to an officer's professional role, and indeed, perhaps many years after the officer had retired or left the force.

Introducing such provision, even as a rebuttable presumption, risks introducing an unnecessary and inappropriate counterproductive deductive legal complexity. Judges will in fact reflect upon the defendant's status and whether it is in fact an aggravating factor that happens in practice. Furthermore, it would require the court to judge a person by their job quite possibly, what they were doing many years before could be 20 years before the commission of the offence and wholly unconnected with their service. Similarly, we have significant cerns about the other amendment for 26.

Pensions are deferred pay. They have been earned at the time by service. I appreciate that issues arise where, while being so paid, the officer embarks on perhaps corrupt behaviour, but that is something which the police service will have to think about how it addresses. It requires careful consideration of terms of service and if the police service wishes to include appropriate terms to address that sort of conduct, then that is a matter for careful and balanced drafting, not for the relative.

And I mean this politely sledgehammer, which is proposed here. Once money has been earned and it is transferred to the relevant individual, and that money is now their property, this amendment would undermine that principle and give the courts the power to deprive some of the money, someone of money which may be entirely unrelated to the crime of which they being convicted. It's really a large mandatory fine on top of any other sentence. Police officers who go to prison face, we all know undoubted unpleasantness and very often have to be offered solitary confinement and so on, and protection will increase.

That in itself is a very substantial penalty. So we agree with the noble Baroness Doocey about the risks of these amendments and the steps which equally should be taken to improve the way in which the police service operates. But the forfeiture of pension rights for any criminal, just any criminal offence, especially in cases distinct from instances of abuse of police powers, could lead to disproportionate unintended consequences. We recognise that maintaining public confidence in policing is essential, but that confidence must be upheld through clear standards and by conviction when things go wrong, and then more effective punishment if needed and if necessary by revision of the terms of service, but done by as a matter of terms of service, not by this rather blunt instrument.

We look to the noble Lord, the Minister, for assurances on those points. Relevant penalties must be imposed on the basis of conduct, not just status. So we cannot support them. The context in which the sentence is passed is the fact of service that will be relevant, but it is only relevant to the case which in that particular case comes before the courts.
14:06
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
And my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti indicated this was a probing amendment, and I'm grateful for the opportunity for the for the opportunity for the discussion on these points. I just want to start by saying, and this goes to noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and noble Lady Baroness Doocey, and to my noble friend, that the the government is committed, and this Labour government is committed to making improvements in police standards. And that is why we have introduced significant reforms to strengthen police vetting, to act on misconduct and performance systems.

And it includes placing a duty on officers to hold and maintain vetting clearances and introducing a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct. There's a number of measures in this bill, but also in secondary legislation, and I trail the shortly to be produced white paper, which on police reform. And those will show that this Labour government, just to answer the noble Lady's point, is committed to upholding standards and improving them, particularly in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard and the conviction of police officers for what are simply heinous crimes.

So let's just put that on the record as a starting point, because I don't accept the noble Lady with due respect, position, that we're not doing anything on these matters. I also support my noble friend's broader position on strengthening accountability in the police service, and I would wish to see that happen. But I've just again place for her to consider in probing these amendments that whether these are proportionate or fair or necessary, and taking up some of the points that the noble Lord Sandhurst has made in his contribution as well, and sharing those points as well.

Amendment 45 would make an individual's current or former service as a police officer a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing them for any criminal offence. And I think it is right that an officer's service should be an aggravating factor where the offence has been committed in connection with their service, particularly where officers have abused their position of trust. It cannot be right that individuals should be sentenced more harshly than other members of the public based on their occupation or indeed, as the noble Lord Sandhurst said, their former occupation.

But that's why existing sentencing guidelines, which are issued by the Sentencing Council and must be followed by the courts unless not in the interests of justice to do so, make clear that is an abuse of power of position is an aggravating factor in sentencing. And I know my noble friend knows that because she mentioned it in her contribution. Introducing a statutory provision is therefore necessary, because I would submit to my noble friend that there is no gap in law or practice, and it would be neither fair nor proportionate to presume that a person's current or previous service as a police officer was an aggravating factor in all cases.

If I look at her amendment 426, this would give powers to the Crown Court to make decisions on the forfeiture of police officers pensions. Where an officer has been convicted of a criminal offence. And again, as I've mentioned already, I am sympathetic to strengthening accountability in the police service. But at the moment, the responsibility for the forfeiture of a police officer's pension is already set out in legislation. And again, I know she knows this because she made reference to it is in the hands of, in most cases, elected police and crime commissioners, police and crime commissioners are not only the pension supervising authority for police officers, they're the local elected officials designed to represent the public and local communities.

And therefore, I would contend to my noble friend, they are clearly well positioned to consider the impact of such offending on public confidence in policing. I think it's also worth mentioning, however, though, that to the committee that the Home Secretary does have a role in this matter, a forfeit pension cannot be made without a conviction. Having been first certified by the Home Secretary as either being gravely injurious to the interests of the state, or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence.

And whilst the Crown Court has an existing role as the relevant appeal body following a forfeiture decision, the process of considering whether to pursue and apply for pension forfeiture is not, I would suggest properly the responsibility of the criminal courts, especially given the fact that they have an appeal role in that process, and especially also as there's no mechanism in the amendment that would allow the Home Secretary to make submissions to the Crown Court on public interest factors that should be considered.

So I would hope that my friend, I know she's probed on this amendment. I I'm simply saying to her that and I know she knows this because she referenced it in her speech. Those two mechanisms are available. We're trying to actually look at the key issue, which in my view is sorting out vetting issues, sorting out standards and making sure we maintain those standards. And that is what we're doing in this bill, but also in the White Paper to shortly before the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

And I would therefore ask my noble friend to,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at least on this occasion, withdraw her amendment. Before the noble Lord sits down. I didn't hear an answer to my I didn't hear an answer to my question about the fact of why a judge shouldn't hear about pension judge shouldn't hear about pension forfeiture in an open court, but the forfeiting of pensions does happen. But it happens outside the happen. But it happens outside the court, in closed in closed rooms. And we never understand really the reasons given. So why not allow it judge?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as I just said, it can be done in court in front of a judge on appeal, the decision to be taken by the police and crime by the police and crime commissioner or, and or the Home Secretary is accountable for those matters. And that's the position matters. And that's the position that the government intends to hold to. It may not satisfy the noble Lady as ever. But I say to her, I Lady as ever. But I say to her, I look forward to her support on the key issue, which is improving vetting to make sure that we do not vetting to make sure that we do not have those significant bad apples in the police force in the first place.

And that is our key focus in terms of both the white paper and measures in this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to, to to all noble Lords who who took part in this short debate. I said these were probing amendments because I thought it was important that we that we discussed in this committee that we discussed in this committee on this bill the issue of police standards and discipline and public confidence, as well as all the confidence, as well as all the other measures that we're constantly debating to do with additional additional police powers. additional additional police powers.

So I am so grateful. I just say gently to the noble Lord Sandhurst opposite that in his response to the pension forfeiture provision, he spoke as if this wasn't already an established principle. I think the noble Lady Baroness Hollins got it right when she said the. The issue here is about how will you inspire most public confidence when forfeiture proceedings are happening? Wouldn't there be some benefit in this being part of the sentence, and therefore given greater publicity because it had been announced in an open Crown Court? That's that's I think, really the only, the only difference between us, because I'm just grasping at any straw of how we might in this country try and improve confidence in policing,
14:13
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
where year on year, this is this, this is not happening. But I was particularly grateful to my noble friend, the Minister for, for, for friend, the Minister for, for, for in a sense, responding to the provocation of the noble Lady Jones provocation of the noble Lady Jones to talk about what he plans, the white paper and so on. And I'm sure we all look forward to engaging we all look forward to engaging with all of those for the for the moment, though, I, of course, beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw these amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 46 Baroness Chakrabarti not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 47 Baroness Doocey. My Lords, I rise to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment 42 seven, which concerns one of the most vital levers for improving the performance and professionalism of our police service, the training of frontline service, the training of frontline officers. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of commission an independent review of the training officers receive, once deployed by their forces. At present, the College of Policing sets national standards and issues, codes and regulations, but it cannot enforce them to comply.

Implementation depends on the forces themselves. The Home Office and Inspectorates to give those standards real force. The result is uneven training and a postcode lottery for the public. This is not a marginal issue. Forces spend around 4 to £500 million each year on training, yet there has been no independent scrutiny of its quality or effectiveness since 2018, which in my opinion is an absolute disgrace. Nor is there clarity on whether programmes are evaluated to show they work.

The quality of
14:15
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
training is fundamental to public confidence. Around a third of officers have now less than five officers have now less than five years service the most inexperienced workforce in decades. inexperienced workforce in decades. Meanwhile, nearly 40% of all recorded crimes go unsolved, and recorded crimes go unsolved, and fewer than 1 in 10 violent or sexual offences result in a charge. The national charge rate has fallen to 6%, down from 16% a decade ago. The variation between forces is stark.

The proportion of cases where a suspect is brought to justice has fallen from 25% a decade ago to 11% in 2024. Some forces achieve 20%, others just 7%. Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, investment in investigative training has helped push that figure above 30%. That contrast should make us pause. The result of patchy training is clear fraud arrests have fallen by 64% since 2015, despite soaring offences, with some officers lacking the skills. Even to follow up basic reports, half of neighbourhoods have seen no burglaries solved in three years.

Investigatory training in volume crime is frequently described by HMRC as inadequate. I have heard of child sexual abuse teams staffed almost entirely by inexperienced officers and of detective training, reduced to a box ticking exercise. The modern police career should include periodic refresher training on a five year cycle and properly accredited, so that skills are maintained throughout service. Without that, we cannot expect officers to keep up with the fast changing challenges of crime. Modern policing demands specialists, but unless frontline officers have solid core skills, specialist work cannot succeed.

The first police encounter shapes victim confidence in areas such as violence against women and girls. Research shows that insufficient training leads to half of allegations being withdrawn within days. Protective orders underused and modern slavery going undetected. Chief constables acknowledged the pressure of time and resources and called for more flexible, modernised training. The National Police Chiefs Council has warned of fragmented commissioning and inconsistent quality. I welcome the creation of a new strategic training panel, chaired by the chief executive of the College of Policing and the college's review of compliance and quality assurance.

These are steps in the right direction, but much, much more is needed. My Lord's force training is the bedrock of operational competence. Successive governments have given new powers to police without ensuring the training to use them properly. Amendment 427 would provide at last a clear and independent picture of what officers are learning, where the gaps lie and what must change. The purpose of this bill is to protect to protect victims. To do so, officers must be able to recognise exploitation, stalking or cuckooing, handling complex anti-social behaviour and protest laws, and support victims of online fraud with image abuse or image abuse.

Without robust training to recognise offences, secure evidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and build chargeable cases, these aims will not be met. I beg to move. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes amendment proposed after clause 166. Insert the following new clause. The words as printed on new clause. The words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. It's a pleasure to support Lady Ducie on Amendment 427, and I have
14:19
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Ducie on Amendment 427, and I have signed amendment 48, which I will address as well. My Lords, I come to the issue of mental health because I was present and contributed to the debate on the last time your Lordships' House in a reviewed and improved the Armed Services covenant. And mental health plays a vital part in that. And I have to say that I have friends and family members who are past and present members of the military, and I have seen how the military over the last 15, 20 years has managed and improved its own mental health.

So that's the position that I took when trying to have a look at how our police service, not just officers but ancillary staff as well, are supported when they face difficult circumstances that might put their mental health under pressure. And the difference between the MoD's approach and the College of Policing approach is really quite stark. To start with the College of Policing, and indeed I looked at some individual constabularies as well, is all about signposting elsewhere to outside organisations.

There is virtually nothing on what happens inside your own organisation if you are a police officer. So the front page rightly refers to Samaritans. First it talks about mind, it talks about social media support, it talks about support for police officers and staff experiencing mental ill or distress. And then and only then on page four does it start to talk about what happens inside your own place of employment and how you can find support there.

The contrast with the Mod page on mental health is that the page that the. Sorry, the headline that starts with Armed Forces, Covenant and Mental Health within five lines. It has a massive headline that says getting advice or help urgently serving personnel. And then it goes through that and then it does. For veterans. It starts by saying your first point of call should be your chain of command unit, medical officer, welfare officer or chaplain if you are in the UK or overseas.

So you know instantly if you are a serving member of staff, that actually your first place is the place in which you live and work and have your chain of command, your people above you, and also the people who may be junior to you. Now, I recognise that the details of the Armed Services covenant is different to the employment relationship that police officers have. But I think the other point I want to make, before I move specifically on to the amendment, is to say that one of the other things that the armed services learned as a consequence of the Afghan campaign was that they needed to get a much better dialogue going on between staff, and they were almost the first people to start introducing mental health first aiders.

And it absolutely transformed areas of the military where it was introduced with gusto. Back again to this idea about the chain of command meant that there was an instant response from somebody who, like a first aid trainer, could go and say to a colleague, you were right, we've got some problems or whatever policing. It appears very patchy as to whether mental health first aiders are properly encouraged. In fact, the only thing online that I could find was that two years ago, the Staffordshire Constabulary said that in in 2023 it had over 50 mental health first aiders.

Well, I think that's a really good standard, but there is no evidence held centrally about the level of that because it also indicates the seriousness with which a service in its entirety looks after and its its personnel. So I looked at Lady Ducey's amendment, which sets out some criteria to start to gather that information about the response to mental health, not just mental health first aiders. And I couldn't again find anything online that was solely about policing.

However, there was a recent report by the King Centre for Military Health at King's College London, jointly researched by King's College London, the O2 and the Royal Foundation, entitled Assessing the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Emergency Responders communities in the UK. So that obviously isn't just police. That includes ambulance service and it includes firefighters as well. And they noted in their very good research paper that generally there was an absence of definitions across the three services that that are emergency responders, very little monitoring and evaluation.

They talked about the importance of trauma support, including for PTSD. They emphasised, as I have already mentioned, the reliance of signposting to outside bodies rather than a lack of involvement inside the police forces. And they certainly emphasised the lack of data collection evaluation, including on self-harm, suicide, alcohol and substance misuse. So there was no real sense of how they were going to address what worked, what didn't work and therefore whether any training they were doing was going to be relevant.

They recommend that there has to be a promotion of good practice. So how do you know where good practice is? Promotion and extending support for mental health and wellbeing champions, which I think really means that mental health first aiders and other, some of the other forms of that, the key thing they said was there should be a single universal gateway to access in the way that the mod page does. But in order to have that single university gateway, there has to be a single universal collection of data and evaluation so that across the board, the police service can understand what works and what doesn't work.

The UK Systematic Review found 81 recent results of ad hoc research projects, of which 43 were from police forces. So, frankly, my Lords, everybody needs to work much better together to make this work. Which brings me back to the amendment. This sets out, at the very least, a route to start to collect that data right across the police officer, police force, in police forces in England and Wales. It focuses on a series of issues that that I've already mentioned, and it would be a really good start to being able to start to approach issues about mental health in the way that the military do for their people, where they are having success, and I hope that the Home Office Minister will look at those in order to look at whether or not he decides that this amendment should be supported.
14:27
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, amendments 47 and 48, both in the name of the noble both in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Doocey, raise important questions about police training and how best to ensure officers are properly equipped for the demands of modern policing. 47 would require the Secretary of State to establish an review of in-service police training. We recognise the underlying principle of the point being made here. It's important policing has changed significantly in recent years, not least with the growth of digital crime, involve evolving crime, involve evolving investigative techniques.

Involving. Investigating. Investigative techniques and greater awareness of trauma and professional standards. It's entirely right that we ask whether training keeps pace with these demands, and whether there is sufficient consistency in effectiveness across forces. An independent review is one way of taking stock of that landscape and identifying gaps or best practice. However, reviews of this nature inevitably come with costs in time and resource. They also risk introducing potential further bureaucratic hurdles for the police force. My Lords, it's worth reflecting whether there may be other mechanisms, such as through existing inspection or the monitoring of professional standards frameworks that could achieve similar outcomes.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, how the government currently assesses the quality and consistency of in-service training, and whether further work of this kind is already underway. Amendment 48 focuses specifically on mandatory mental health training for frontline officers. The intention behind this amendment is clear police officers are often the first responders in highly distressing situations involving individuals in mental health crises. A degree of appropriate training in de-escalation and communication is clearly valuable. However, we on this side do have some concerns that I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can address.

The Mental Health Act 2025 has deliberately sought to reduce the role of the police in mental health detentions. This reinforces that police cells are not the places of safety, and that health services must take greater responsibility. In that context, we must be careful not to blur the lines of responsibility or risk turning police officers into quasi social workers. By default, it is essential that any training framework complements rather than undermines the right care right person approach, with clear duties placed on the appropriate health and social care professionals.

These thoughtful amendments, supported by the thoughtful observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, sorry, Lady Brinton, raise important issues about capability and clarity in in policing. I look forward to the noble Lord. The Minister's response, particularly on how the government is already supporting high quality training and how it intends to strike the right balance between preparedness and proper division of responsibilities. Sorry.
14:31
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble >> I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, for raising these issues. I know she feels these issues. I know she feels strongly about them. We have an interchangeable front bench here between the Lady Ducey and Baroness Brinton. It's always of interest to me that we seem to have a good due ability between the two of two noble Baronesses on these matters, and I'm grateful for the Baroness Brinton support for her colleague from the frontbench, stroke backbench Baroness Doocey.

I think she's right, if I may say so, that, you know, training and support is vital. Police officers do a difficult job. They need to identify and have that support, and I'm grateful for her shining a light on this. In terms of the amendment today. She does know, and I just want to put this on the record again, that the College of Policing does currently set standards for police training and development, including the national policing Curriculum, to support initial learning for new recruits and standards and accreditation for those who work in high risk or specialist roles.

The College of Policing also works strongly with police forces to support standards and to look at ongoing training and development. Again, our White paper, which will appear in very short order, will consider the future workforce and will set out reform proposals on leadership and on culture to ensure that the government Safer Streets Project and others. And the mission that we have is equipped with support to achieve those objectives. The noble Baroness will also know that my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is currently the chair of the Police College of Policing, have been given the role of a new commission to review police leadership, which the government supports and that, I expect, is going to include the wider training issues that the noble Baroness has made reference to today.

And I don't really want to pre-empt that work, but I still think it is important that we just recognise that and that the request for the Home Secretary to commission an independent review, as amendment 47 suggests, would potentially duplicate or pre-empt what is already being undertaken by the White Paper and by the two colleagues from this House. A member for 28 ensures that police officers are equipped to deal with suffering and people mental health crises. And again, it's extremely important issue.

It is important that our police have the training and skills to not just be able to identify when a person is vulnerable, but also to understand how to intervene appropriately. When people are experiencing a mental health crisis. And again, I do so because for the reasons that the noble Baroness Brinton has said officers will be the first port of call when mental health crises happen very often because they are the first port of call in every circumstance, and it is important that officers are equipped to make appropriate decisions in that range of circumstances and to treat people fairly with humanity and understand the issues accordingly.

Now, I happen to say that evidence shows that they're doing a reasonable job on that. The Mental Health Act review by Professor Sir Simon Wesley noted that, and I quote numerous examples of police treating those in mental health problems with kindness and compassion were identified. That's what the public should expect, and that's what we want to see it. Also, may I just say to both the noble Baroness Brinton and the noble Lady juicy? As I've said, the College of Policing does set relevant standards and guidance and training on these operational matters.

And if I say to her, I know, I know. The noble Baroness Brinton said that she tried to find examples of that. Could I just say to that the College of Policing currently has a mental health learning programme available via College Learn. It does have programme specification and training guides which are updated very recently. In the last few years there are module titles on mental health and the police providing a first response to mental health incidents, responding to suicide, providing specialist support and incidents of mental health and developing a strategic response to mental health and with operational support from chief constables who are independent of government.

I think that how they use that resource is a matter for the police, and different police forces will face different challenges and pressures and have different ways of doing it. But I think that there is a level of support which again. The the outcomes of the police white paper and the reviews by the two noble Lords I've mentioned will assist and support, but I think it's important. Yeah, I think I think it's important that we recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that work is ongoing. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord. I think I was making a very slightly different point, because I'm aware that there are these courses. I think my argument was that what the military has achieved has been through culture change has been through culture change within the entire organisation, rather than just sending people on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a course and to get a qualification. It is important to do that. But I just also say to the noble Baroness that the police are not mental health experts, nor should we expect them to be, because at the end of the day, they're going to be the first responders which have to identify and support and the work on the right care, right person project over the last two years by police and health partners to ensure that people who are in mental health crisis get the right response from the right person, with the right training and skills at the right time is important.

And that work has shown has been a decrease in unwarranted police intervention in mental health pathways. We want people with a mental health challenge to have that support. The police are dealing with the crisis at that moment, and perhaps the consequence of the crisis of the behaviour, rather than the underlying long term trends. And I think that, you know, there will always be a role for police in dealing with mental health calls where there's a risk of serious harm. It's important that police have access to relevant health information and use their police powers to do that.

But importantly, as I've mentioned already, there's an important set of training material available which goes to points that the noble Lord Sandhurst has mentioned and the Mental Health College of Police is training is for all officers to go through, all new officers to go through, and there's additional suites of training material I've referred to that provide, I hope the approach to the culture change and the noble Lady is seeking this training provides officers with knowledge to recognise what mental health challenges there are, and to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators.

Now, I think it's a worthwhile discussion, but I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey that I think it would be helpful to withdraw those amendments now, and we will reflect on the outcome of the White Paper in due course.
14:38
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And also thank the Minister for his response and thanks. Excuse me, his response and thanks. Excuse me, Brendan, for her summing up, which I thought was excellent. I just want to make a couple of quick want to make a couple of quick points. I'm very much aware that the College of Policing determine what training should be provided what training should be provided for police officers, but the point I was making, and perhaps not strongly enough, is that the training doesn't work. The training is inappropriate.

Every police chief will tell you that. And HMRC FRS, which is the inspectorate, have said on multiple occasions and in multiple reports that the training is inadequate and there needs to be changes and nothing has happened. I honestly think that there has got to be whatever happens, an independent national audit of police training, because there hasn't been one since 2012 and in fact the last one was a peel inspection which examined individual forces but not the national picture.

I am so looking forward to the Minister's White Paper. I cannot even begin to describe how excited I am about it, because I think I'm correct in saying that the Minister has referred to it, that it would solve all our problems in almost every single topic we've ever discussed. So my only concern is, I think if it contains as much as as many, as many subjects, and it's going to solve as many problems as the Minister is suggesting, it's probably going to be more like an encyclopaedia than a paper.

But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 428 Baroness Doocey. Oh, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. Not moved. I amendment 429

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Doocey. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 429 and 430 in my name. An effective response is the response of an untrusted police service must be built from the ground up, not imposed from the top down. I hope the forthcoming white Paper will start from that premise and reflect the government's stated commitment to community policing. The Minister will no doubt highlight the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee and the promise of named officers in every community. Much of this bill is couched as strengthening neighbourhood officers ability.

Excuse me to tackle the priorities of most concern to local communities. Respect orders, tighter shoplifting laws and new vehicle seizure powers. Could I have some water, please? Yes. But none of this addresses the central challenge for Chief Constable's how to deliver on these promises. Amid rising demand, high turnover and chronic funding shortfalls, frontline delivery depends on forces retaining officers in visible community roles rather than constantly redeploying them to plug shortages elsewhere. Despite the new neighbourhood policing grant, the early signs are troubling.

Last month, Cheshire Police announced a 70% cut in PCSo numbers. Thank you from 87 to 27, despite public opposition citing the need to save £13 million nationally to PCSo, numbers fell by 3.3% in the year to March 19th, 2025, a loss equivalent to 253 full time officers. While front counters continue to close and more and more school liaison programmes disappear, this simply isn't good enough. Public confidence rests on local responsiveness, yet neighbourhood policing teams today have around 10,000 fewer officers and PCSOs than in 2015, the police inspectorate has warned that some forces lack sufficient neighbourhood officers to deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, with huge variations of service across the country.

Between 2019 and 2023, over 4 million anti-social behaviour incidents were not attended by an officer in person. Some forces responded to every report, others to very few. And of course, trusted neighbourhood officers are critical not only to tackle anti-social behaviour but also knife crime, domestic abuse, retail theft to name just a few. Amendment 429, therefore seeks to guarantee every local authority area a dedicated neighbourhood policing team, protected from being routinely diverted to fill response gaps and to require an annual Home Office report on the State of Community policing.

Amendment 430 would make it a statutory duty for forces to maintain neighbourhood teams at effective staffing levels. The level to be determined by forces, councils, communities and ward panels to ensure resources meet local demand. To support this, we propose ring fencing. 20% of future police grants, supplemented by a share of recovered proceeds of crime. This approach preserves operational flexibility. Forces could, of course, choose to exceed the minimum level if they so wished. I urge the government to work with these benches towards our shared goal restoring visible, trusted and effective neighbourhood policing and I beg to move.
14:44
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 166. Insert the following new clause the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling these two amendments for 29 and for 30. Neighbourhood policing is one of the most important facets of the job. We support any approach that intends to increase the presence of officers within neighbourhood communities. It is all consistent and very much part of the approach that great conservative Sir Robert Peel, my Lords visible police presence on the streets of local communities is an incredibly important role.

There is an there's the obvious consequence that more officers out on patrol results in more crime being deterred and prevented, but the latent impact is that more noticeable, familiar and engaged officers contribute to an atmosphere of order and civility within local neighbourhoods. In other words, generally better other words, generally better behaviour. It is in the public to ha the streets, so we support the notion, focus their attentions on providing officers who are well versed in community based support.

We do, however, not accept the premise that the government should mandate that individuals be trained specifically for these community oriented duties in every local authority. This seems both to misplace resources and to misunderstand why police officers are so effective. Under a government that oversaw a decrease of 1200 officers in its first year, resources should not be delineated or restricted to the training and provision of officers for solely community based duties. Those duties themselves should come hand in hand with being a police officer.

They are at its very heart. If they are not being exercised, then we are faced with the cultural and organisational issue rather than a legislative one. Government mandated teams should not be necessary. Community oriented officers should be the norm. The real solution is to hire and train more regular officers, whose roles would include helping with neighbourhood issues. We are more sympathetic to the introduction of proposals that require a minimum level of neighbourhood policing, such as amendment 430 provides for.

The amendment would allow for a more decentralised approach, in which branches would be able to coordinate their own approaches towards neighbourhood policing. We support this principle and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, does too. I look forward to hearing his response.
14:47
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lady >> I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey for her amendments. I just want to start, if I may though. However, with the noble though. However, with the noble Lord Sandhurst, he's prayed in aid the great conservative, he said, Robert Peel has. From my recollection, Robert Peel was certainly not in charge of the police force during the previous 14 years of the government of which he served, because when I was police Minister in 2009 ten, we lost 20,000, 20,000.

I'll say it again, 20,000 police officers in the first years of the conservative government. So Sir Robert Peel had gone walkabout, I think, during that period, and was not serving as a neighbourhood police officer under the Conservative government's watch at that particular time. And there is a lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing between 2010 and the last election. And this government has delivered on our commitment in the election to restore neighbourhood policing. We've already announced the police forces will be supported to deliver a 13,000 increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this parliament in the six months previously, we have delivered 80% of our year one target with nearly 2400 additional neighbourhood officers in post.

We remain on track to reach a full 3000 uplift by April of this year, which goes to the heart of the noble Baroness Doocey amendments. We've backed that with £200 million of additional investment in this current financial year, as part of total funding settlement to police forces of 17.6 billion, and this total funding will again rise next year, 2627, up by 746 million, taking the total funding for police forces up to 18.3 billion next year. Now that is a major level of investment in policing that this government has brought forward, and it meets the objective of the noble Ladies Amendment.

I would argue to her today, and it's because of our neighbourhood policing guarantee that every neighbourhood across England and Wales now has named and contactable officers. These neighbourhood teams are dedicated to engaging with communities, gathering intelligence, preventing crime, preventing anti-social behaviour. Forces are ensuring regular beat meetings take place, providing local people and businesses with a direct platform to shape policing priorities. We have more visible patrols. Officers and PCSOs have started to complete the new neighbourhood policing programme. The Career Pathway Training, launched in June 25th.

There are designated leads for anti-social behaviour in every police force, a commitment for 72 hour response times of neighbourhood queries. All measures. I'm sure the Robert Peel would have welcomed had he been in charge for the previous 14 years, but he wasn't and it didn't. It is now, and I just say that the new Police Standards and Performance Improvement Unit will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of that unit is going to reinforce our commitment to transparency.

And if I can, for the noble Baroness, can I pray in aid the upcoming White Paper on police reform, which will also detail. And she doesn't have too long to wait. Now. She'll also detail how wider reforms will support that government's pledge to rebuild neighbourhood policing. So the noble Lady Ducey's amendments are absolutely in the right direction of travel. The arguments I would make is whether she wants to constrain chief constables by those demands that she's putting centrally.

But I would argue to her that the government will continue to bolster neighbourhood policing has reversed the cuts imposed by the previous government, of which the noble Lord Sandhurst seems to have had a memory blank on what has happened over that period of time. It does set clear standards of local policing. It will work with the National Police Chiefs Council and college and policing and others. And I do think that we are heading in the direction of the noble Baroness amendment without the need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to legislate. Finishes. Perhaps I could just ask about the police Federation's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ask about the police Federation's attitude to the list of changes on. Enforcement that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enforcement that. He that that has. Led out. The government works closely with the Police Federation and will with the Police Federation and will always listen and engage with them. And I've met the chair of the Police Federation myself on a number of occasions. Other Ministers in government do the same and we will engage with them. And like any federation or other form of trade union, they're not a trade union but any other form of trade union. There will be differences between the organisation and the police chiefs and the government on occasions.

That's perfectly natural, but I believe that we are investing in supporting police officers on the ground to do a better job for what they're trying to do, and to ensure that the focus on neighbourhood policing, which the noble Baroness Doocey is seeking, is one that the government is certainly undertaking. And I would urge the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment on that basis.
14:53
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister for his response, and I don't think we're response, and I don't think we're miles and miles apart, I really don't. But just to be clear, I don't. But just to be clear, I would never, ever do anything that I thought Chief Constable's wouldn't be very much in favour of because I am very, very I really think Chief Constable's do a fantastic job, absolutely astonishing job. And I would never do anything that I thought was going to be operationally wrong for them.

I do think that our amendments are designed to complement what the government are trying to do, but our aim is to ensure that all communities receive a guaranteed minimum level of visible local policing attached to the funding that makes this happen, and I look forward to discussing in further detail with the Minister how this can happen, because I really don't think we're miles apart. And I'm sure when we see this mythical white paper, it will give us all the answers that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

require. But meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this. Is it a Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 3430 Baroness Doocey not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 431 Baroness Doocey. My Lords, powerful AI tools are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, powerful AI tools are transforming policing, reshaping how forces investigate, patrol and make decisions, often with profound implications. This amendment would make it a legal requirement for forces to disclose any algorithmic tool used in this way that might affect a person's rights or freedoms. The government's algorithmic transparency Recording Standard, or Atr's, provides a consistent way for public bodies to explain how their algorithms tools work, what data they use, and how human oversight is maintained.

Its goal is a public, searchable record of these systems. Use of the Atr's is mandatory for arm's length bodies delivering public services through the previous government did not extend that to the police, despite calls from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The College of Policing has now integrated the Atr's into its authorised professional practice, and forces are expected to complete an Atr's report for all relevant tools.

That is welcome progress and the hope it forces that its forces will increasingly comply to build public trust and meet their equality and data protection duties. However, while compliance is now expected, failure to record a tool is still not a legal requirement. A force could still choose not to use the Atr's, citing operational necessity, and it would not be breaking any law. Transparency is vital across public services, but nowhere more so than in policing, where these systems have the power to alter lives and restrict liberty.

That is why justice and civil liberties group such as the Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing Institutes want police to use, want police use of these tools to be publicly declared, and for this to be placed on a statutory footing. What is ultimately needed is a national register with real legal something the NPC's own AI lead has called for. The Minister may note the government won't on such want the government work. Sorry on such a registry is underway, which I welcome, but that project will take time.

While AI capabilities advance very rapidly indeed. For now, the atrs is the mechanism we have. This amendment would immediately strengthen it, requiring every operational AI tool from facial recognition to predictive mapping to be publicly declared. Why does this matter? Take gait analysis identifying people by how they move. No UK force has declared using it, but its potential is recognised and Ireland has already legislating for its use in serious crime. Without a legal duty. Here a UK force could deploy gait analysis tomorrow with no public knowledge or oversight, just as facial recognition pilots proceed today with limited transparency.

Forces will spend nearly £2 billion this year on digital technology and analytics. With growing demand and limited resources. It is no surprise at all that forces turn to AI for efficiency. Yet without total transparency, this technological shift risks further eroding public trust. Recognition of that need is growing. No one wants to return to the Met's unlawful gangs. Matrix quietly risk scoring individuals on dubious grounds. For that reason, I urge the government to accept this vital safeguard.

A foundation for accountability in a field that will only grow in power. And in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequence, I beg to move. Posed after clause 166, insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Posed after clause 166, insert the following new clause. The words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 43 one tabled by my noble amendment 43 one tabled by my noble friend Baroness Doocey. And as she's explained, this amendment seeks to place a statutory duty on seeks to place a statutory duty on every police force in England and Wales to disclose their use of algorithmic tools where they affect the rights, entitlements or obligations of individuals. My Lords, we are witnessing a rapid proliferation of of algorithmic decision making in policing, from predictive mapping to risk assessment tools used in custody suites.

Algorithms are increasingly informing how the state interacts with the citizen. Yet too often, these tools operate in a black box, hidden from public view and democratic scrutiny. As we've discussed in relation to other technologies like facial recognition, the deployment of advanced technology without a clear framework undermines public trust. This amendment requires police forces, as my noble friend has explained, to complete entries in the Algorithmic Transparency Recording standard. The Atr's is the government's own standard for algorithmic transparency, developed to ensure public sector accountability.

My Lords, my private sector, my private member's bill on public authority, algorithmic automated decision making. Allows for a more advanced form of reporting. And this in my view, the Atrs is the bare minimum required for accountability for AI use in the public sector. How? Even then, its use by police forces is currently patchy and inconsistent. By making this mandatory, we can ensure that the public knows what tools are being used on them. We can scrutinise whether these tools rely on biased data or flawed logic, and we can move from a culture of secrecy to one of transparency.

By default, my Lords, if the police are confident that these tools are fair and effective, they should have no hesitation in declaring their use. This amendment ensures that when the police use powerful new tech, they are honest about it. And this is a modest but essential first step towards the kind of clear statutory framework for public sector algorithmic decision making that many of us have long argued for. Experience with tools such as postcode based risk scoring and gangs databases shows that when algorithmic systems are hidden from view, they can entrench discrimination and erode trust.

A
15:01
15:02
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard. That standard or A was developed as part of the government's wider digital and AI policy to ensure transparency about how public sector bodies use algorithmic tools in decision making that impacts the public. It provides a template to publish information about such tools. Specifically, that is, information concerning what the tools are, why they are used, and how they influence outcomes. This is seen as an important step to build public understanding and trust in algorithmic systems used by government.

My Lords, Atrs is already mandatory for central government departments and their arms length bodies when tools have significant influence on decisions with public effect, or interact directly with the public, and guidance has been issued to support publication of records. I recognise the intention behind this amendment to promote transparency, accountability and public confidence in the use of algorithmic tools in policing, the use of complex algorithms and artificial intelligence in law enforcement raises legitimate questions about fairness, about oversight, and the protection of fundamental rights.

It is right that Parliament scrutinises how we manage such risks. So I look forward to the Minister's response, including the government's assessment of whether the Atrs framework, as it currently applies, can readily be extended to policing and what further measures might be needed to ensure that transparency and accountability are enhanced without unintended consequences for operational effectiveness. Thank you.
15:04
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Amendment 431 deals >> My Lords. Amendment 431 deals with the use of algorithmic tools in policing. While this government agrees on the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by police forces, we do not believe that this amendment is the optimal means of delivering either meaningful improvements in public confidence or operational benefits for policing. The proposed duty would require police forces to dispose, disclose rather all algorithmic tools through the algorithmic Transparent Transparency Recording Standard or Atrs.

Atrs was designed for government departments and arm's length bodies, not for operationally independent police forces. So whilst this is an effective tool for those organisations, its high level of technical detail and lack of narrative explanation means that the disclosures will not provide the clarity expected by the public and risks burying key information in jargon. More importantly, mandating disclosure of all tools beyond the exemptions policy of the could inadvertently compromise operational security and policing tactics. The government is, however, keen to encourage transparency on the use of algorithmic tools by police forces in England and Wales in order to maintain the support of the public for their use, and in keeping with the core tradition of policing by consent.

In line with this, the government has commissioned work on transparency measures for police use of AI and is working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council AI portfolio and the Police Chief Scientific Adviser to develop policies encouraging and supporting appropriate levels of transparency while safeguarding operational integrity. This approach will ensure that transparency is meaningful, proportionate and does not undermine the effectiveness of policing. I think it's important to recognise that we are listening to the public when we are dealing with concerns that have been raised by the noble Lady Baroness.

Do, do see I round the police encroach on civil liberties. Indeed, the Government Commission have published research into public attitudes on the police use of AI this year. Last year rather, and this research demonstrated strong support for AI use by the police. There are rightful concerns about the need for AI. It used to be underpinned by rigorous oversight. Humans always been clearly involved in decision making and transparency, and these findings indeed have been supported elsewhere. For example, in recently published research by centric, which surveyed 10,000 members of the public.

And that is why we are working closely with the MPC to build upon and implement the principles of the covenant for using AI in policing, which has been signed up to by all forces in England and Wales. And of course, it's important. And the noble noble Lady Baroness Doocey referred to greater use of data analysis. And I suppose there was there was a there was a comparison to live facial recognition. It's really important that we that the that we understand the risks of bias and discriminatory outcomes from using any policing tool.

And to be clear, police deployments must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and data protection law forces are required to assess potential discrimination risks and should be able to evidence that tools are necessary, proportionate and fair. Humans remain clearly involved in decision making, and forces are expected to monitor performance against protected characteristics so that any bias is identified and addressed, and where these tools where tools cannot meet these standards in practice, they should not be deployed or must be withdrawn pending remediation.

And the noble noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones referred to black box systems. And to be clear, you know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we are not comfortable black box systems being used in policing. Policing requires. Oh. My Lords, can I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank the Minister? Much of what he said has been encouraging about developing maybe an alternative to the Atrs, but obviously quite a lot will depend also, and he came on to depend also, and he came on to talking about data protection, about whether officers are trained about whether officers are trained in how article 22 of the GDPR operates in terms of automated decision making. What kind of assurance can the Minister give about the level of knowledge and training in that area?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I as I said, the police deployments must comply with Equality Act 2010 and data Protection law, which of course includes protection, all being under the under the GDPR regulations. I think I would will regulations. I think I would will need, however, that in relation to that specific point on GDPR 22, I think I'm going to have to write to think I'm going to have to write to him to, to, to give to, to give him the full, give him the full details.

But as I say, the general principle of compliance, of course, of of course. So just to finish the point that I was making in reference to his his point of black box systems, where a system is inherently opaque, forces must have compensating controls such as rigorous, rigorous testing, performance monitoring, and strong human review, or not use that system. Given. Given these assurances, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones saying he was. He was encouraged. We'll wait to hear from him, from his, from from his colleague.

As to whether she's encouraged by these responses, I hope she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the vote, before the noble Lord sits down. I'm very interested in this area and supportive of the right use of AI supportive of the right use of AI in policing, because I think it can be enormously helpful to the police in terms of resources. I remember in terms of resources. I remember when I was at Cabinet Office, they were doing a trial where they were were doing a trial where they were using AI instead of officers to using AI instead of officers to look through CCTV of abuse of abuse and child abuse.

And this was saving, you know, a lot of resource and a lot of difficulty for the police officers. The Minister didn't really mention what kind of use the police were making of AI. Is that something that there is any information on that he has, or that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can be referred elsewhere? Without going into huge amounts of huge amounts of detail? I think of huge amounts of detail? I think there is a there is a range, a range of use made by police forces range of use made by police forces at individual force level. And each force makes operationally independent decisions as to which independent decisions as to which what tools they they test, deploy. And sometimes one without going into too much detail. Sometimes into too much detail.

Sometimes it's around administrative tasks you see across lots of different public public services. And sometimes it is, you know, specifically around around operational issues, around investigation. It's probably best that I don't go into into too much detail, but I can certainly if I go back and talk to officials and see what we might be able to follow up in writing with the with the with the noble Lady. If there's more detail we can provide.
15:11
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the Minister >> My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Can I say that yesterday I looked at the public ATR are ATR? Why can't I say that word? Repository that is meant to record what AI tools police forces are deploying. It contained only two entries for police AI tools, even though we know that many are already being used, including systems such as live facial recognition, which is not listed at all, a great deal of AI development takes place within individual police forces rather than through national programmes, and there are several reasons why these tools may not be appearing in the central record.

Some forces believe that putting information on their own website is sufficient to meet transparency requirements. Others may avoid reporting tools by categorising them simply as standard software, rather than as algorithms or AI systems. There may also be worries about publishing full information, which could make it easier for defence lawyers to challenge decisions in court. So I think both the government and we are clear, and I think the opposition, that there absolutely is a problem that needs to be addressed because it's not being addressed at the moment and AI is moving at such a rapid pace that this isn't something that can be kicked into the long grass.

It really does need to be addressed now. So I look forward to seeing the proposals that the government are going to come forward with. I won't mention the war or the white

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paper, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 432. Baroness Doocey. My Lords, amendment 432 seeks to My Lords, amendment 432 seeks to press the government on their plans to address long standing problems to address long standing problems of fragmented, fragmented police and criminal justice data systems. My Lords, I must tell you that I was working on this very subject when I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which I left more than 16 years ago. And the system hasn't changed nor got any better.

Baroness Casey recent national audit on group based Child Sexual Exploitation described Policing's data intelligence infrastructure as antiquated and identified systemic failures that continue to put children at serious risk. The audit also highlighted the wider paucity of technology underpinning policing. These concerns echo what's been said for many years, and when I served on the Metropolitan Police Authority, the same warnings had already been voiced about creaking systems that did not keep pace with the demands placed on them. Yet, despite endless reviews, there is still no fully integrated digital system linking the police with the rest of the criminal justice system.

Fragmented, outdated. It undermines public protection. More broadly. Officers time is wasted on manual workarounds. Investigative opportunities are missed, prosecutions are delayed, and known risks are not always identified, let alone shared, as digital evidence proliferates and crime becomes more cross-border and complex, the lack of seamless data sharing between forces and agencies becomes even more damaging. Concern about poor IT integration between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are being formally raised. As far back as the late 1990s, a major joint inspection published in July 2025, reiterated that the CPS case management system was never designed to interface properly with the 43 different police IT systems contributing to delays, low charge rates and victim frustration.

In other words, the same structural problems persist nearly three decades on, the issues extend to national agencies. An inspection of the national crime agencies data exploitation capability reported that the NCA relied on hundreds of legacy IT systems, limiting its ability to routinely access and analyse routine organised crime intelligence and to exploit bulk data in the new law enforcement data service that the Minister mentioned earlier, which is due to replace the National Policing computer inspections inspectors recommended that the development of a clear plan and timetable to deliver routine bulk analysis of that database should be done.

It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether these recommendations have now been implemented. The same story plays out at force level. In one example, a force was unable to upload child abuse imagery to the National Child Abuse Image Database because device analysis had been outsourced to a provider that could not access the system directly, hampering victim identification and offending and offender detection. Across the country, officers still find themselves copying and pasting details between systems that cannot talk to each other or using clunky, decades old interfaces for basic checks.

My Lords, there is now wide ranging recognition of the problem, but there is still no overarching end to end criminal justice IT strategy. Properly resourced and with clear leadership. Capital funding for policing technology has been squeezed in recent settlements, with forces often relying on short term fixes or diverting revenue budgets just to keep ageing systems alive. The result is that a large share of technology spending simply maintains outdated platform, leaving little room for the modern, secure, integrated infrastructure that policing so desperately needs.

Amendment 432 proposes that the government embark on a five year strategic overhaul to deliver modern, interoperable systems across policing and the wider criminal justice system. It does not dictate that the detailed infrastructure, but it does require a national plan, proper coordination and oversight. Without that, the risk is that valuable initiatives, however well intentioned, remain piecemeal and face and fail to deliver the transformation that officers, victims and the public deserve. I beg to move. Amendment proposed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause. As printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of much of what the noble Lady, Lady Ducie, has said about Lady, Lady Ducie, has said about the problems we face. And I think this actually links in well with my own amendments, which will be own amendments, which will be taking next week for three six on enforcement data and 4.37 on police paperwork. The fact of the matter is that a lot of officer time is wasted. There's too much paper, there's too much copy and paste.

And as she said, opportunities are missed. And I know this because my son works in the met and often complains when it comes to see me
15:19
15:19
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> I just want to make a very brief intervention. >> Cheekily, because I haven't taken any role on this bill. But I think that my noble friend amendment in the way and what she said in support of it, and the words of the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe, are highly pertinent to the debate that's going on about the government's proposal to restrict jury trials. I happen to have been reading on the tube in a report about the an account, about the report from the Institute for government, which has looked at the government's proposals and concluded that the time savings from judge only trials would be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2% of Crown Court time.

And what they're suggesting is what is pertinent. The government should instead focus on how to drive up productivity across the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology required for the court to operate more efficiently. Now, as others have said, and those who know the situation much better than than I do, I mean, it sounded pretty dire. I mean, one is used to all these problems of legacy systems and lack of interoperability and so on. I remember all that debate at EU level, but it's difficult work, and it's probably at least initially, capital intensive work.

But instead of sort of promoting these headline grabbing gestures of abolishing jury trials, the government needs to actually fix the terrible lack of efficiency in the criminal justice system. I would just add, I think the I'm not sure the civil justice system is any better, having unfortunately had a modest involvement in a case in the county court where it was impossible to actually phone any staff. And you might be lucky to get a response to an email after a week.

So, you know, making the system work efficiently and all bits interacting with each other would, would do a great deal more to increase productivity and, and save the time of all those people running around. I mean, the accounts one has from people who work in the criminal court about reports not being available, files being lost, staff being absent, let alone the decrepit state of court buildings. All of this investment needs to go in before the government resorts, as I say, to gesture politics and things like abolishing jury trials.
15:22
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, sir, I rise to speak to amendment 432, tabled by my noble amendment 432, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Doocey and so well introduced by her. I know this lack of appropriate technology, and the fact that it is handicapping our police services is something that she feels very strongly about. And I was delighted to hear what the noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe had to say. And my noble friend Baroness Ludford, because clearly this extends this lack of the appropriate technology extends beyond the police services into the wider criminal justice system.

My Lords, and this new clause addresses the desperate state of police data infrastructure by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a national plan to modernise police data and intelligence systems within 12 months. As mentioned in the explanatory statement, this is not an abstract, bureaucratic request, it's a direct response, amongst other things, to recommendation seven of Baroness Casey's National Audit on group based Child sexual exploitation and abuse. Her review painted a damning picture of the current landscape intelligence systems, intelligence systems that do not talk to one another, vital information trapped in silos and officers unable to join the dots to protect vulnerable children.

It's unacceptable that in 2025 we're still relying on fragmented, obsolete IT systems to fight sophisticated, networked criminality. This amendment mandates a coherent national strategy to ensure that antiquated police technology is replaced. Intelligence regarding predatory behaviour is shared effectively across police borders in real time, and we finally close the capability gaps that allow perpetrators of group based child sexual exploitation to slip through the net. My Lords, amendment 432 ensures that when the police hold vital intelligence, they have the systems to use it effectively.

We cannot claim to be serious about tackling child exploitation if we do not fix the digital infrastructure that underpins our investigations.
15:25
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment, which seeks to require the government to publish a national plan to modernise police data and intelligence systems in England and Wales. At its heart, this amendment speaks to the very practical and pressing concern that our policing infrastructure must stay up to date with modern crime, particularly the most harmful and insidious forms of abuse. My Lords, outdated and fragmented information systems can frustrate effective policing.

That point was raised in Baroness Casey national audit on group based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, that noted that some police forces are still operating antiquated legacy systems that inhibit real time data sharing and hinder coordinated action across forces and with partner agencies, group based child sexual exploitation is a complex crime. Our response, therefore, must be equally networked and technologically capable. Baroness Casey is recommendation number seven made clear that improving data systems is essential, and I emphasise that word essential to ensuring children's safety and to enabling earlier intervention and more efficient information exchange.

I look forward to the noble Lord, the Minister's outline of what steps the government has already taken to address this issue. This amendment seeks to take that recommendation forward by requiring a national plan with clear steps and milestones to modernise, clear police data and intelligence systems. We strongly support the idea of having clear milestones not just for police forces and agencies, but for the public and Parliament. Transparent targets allow for progress to be measured, to be debated, and to provide operational leaders with something concrete and tangible to work towards.

We also welcome the requirement for an annual progress reports to be laid before Parliament until the plans objectives are achieved, that level of ongoing scrutiny is important. If we truly want to drive systemic improvement, rather than to allow good intentions to gather dust. I echo, therefore, the helpful contributions of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe and of Baroness Ludford. We really must do better. So I look forward to the noble Lord. The Minister's response to this amendment. I'd be grateful if he would outline how the government intends to address the problems identified in the National Audit, and how the government will respond to the constructive challenge that this amendment presents.

Thank you.
15:28
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for explaining the rationale behind her amendment, which requires that a comprehensive national plan to improve police data and intelligence systems is set out within 12 months of the bill receiving Royal assent. And whilst I'm sympathetic to the intent of this amendment, and I think I'd say probably everyone in your Lordships House is, I'd stress the Parliament already has has a role in holding the Home Office to account on policing systems.

The Public Accounts Committee has oversight of law Enforcement Data service, and has required the Home Office to provide detailed information on its development. The Commons Home Affairs Committee also regularly scrutinises Home Office digital transformation and policing technology, and it is, of course, open to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in your Lordships House to do likewise. Additionally, His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services publishes the State of Policing, the annual assessment of policing in England and Wales. This report is laid before Parliament, ensuring Parliament remains informed about the performance, challenges and progress of police forces across England and Wales.

This provides information on police efficiency, effectiveness and progress on reforms, including those relating to it and crime data integrity. My Lords work to improve access to policing data is already underway. For example, last June, the Home Office conducted a preliminary market engagement to better understand what solutions the market could offer policing to improve data integration. We are currently evaluating those resources against the existing policing landscape to determine the best way forward. We also awarded a contract to deliver a police technology strategy and roadmap, and the question has been fairly rightly and fairly posed how the how the government will ensure that lessons from the noble Lady Baroness Casey National audit on group based child sexual exploitation and abuse are acted upon, and I want to reassure your Lordships House.

The government is already acting on the recommendations of the National Audit, including work with the Department for education on unique identifiers for children and improvements to police information systems. These actions are being delivered through existing programmes, which are more agile and can be updated as new challenges arise. Unlike a statutory plan which could quickly become outdated, My Lords, I want to acknowledge the genuine concern and commitment that underpins calls for reform in police data and intelligence systems. We all share the goal of protecting vulnerable children, making sure that they do not come to harm because of failures to share data and information with the right people at the right time, and ensuring that our policing infrastructure is fit for purpose and fit for the future.

However, it is vital that these reforms are delivered thoughtfully, binding on the robust accountability and reporting mechanisms already in place, without adding additional burdens on the teams working hard to deliver the step change needed. And not for the first time in this in committee this afternoon, I will refer you'll hear from the Dispatch Box, rather a reference to the forthcoming White Paper on police reform. It is I want to assure the noble Lady Baroness Doocey for a comment she made on an earlier group.

It's not mythical. It exists. It's not a unicorn. It's going to come over the hill. And to my noble, my noble friend, the Minister he is. It is going to be coming, coming soon. And this will provide a comprehensive vision for policing reforms, including data improvements, and will reflect on the collective expertise and dedication of all involved. Now the noble Lady Baroness Ludford slightly widened the scope of debate. I would say debate on the scope of the bill. I should maybe should say in terms of talking about bringing jury trials into view.

And what I would say is that, of course, the the, the policing and police reform White Paper is absolutely at the heart of it is about improving police productivity and making policing more effective and policing systems more effective. So we are looking at productivity there. And I would add that the forthcoming courts bill will, of course, be addressing efficiency in our courts and wider criminal justice system. So, you know, there there is a there is activity, there is activity happening that maybe directly commenting on some of the the statistical claims she reported for your noble Lordships pleasure, I hope I've been able to reassure the noble Lady Baroness Doocey that we are sympathetic to what her moment seeks to achieve, and we, of course, share her desire for concrete change in policing IT systems.

The government is already working with police partners to deliver these improvements through established programs, so I hope in light of this, she'll be content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw her amendment. Before the Minister sits down. I'm delighted to hear, obviously, about the White paper. And we can't about the White paper. And we can't you know, we're really looking forward to it being published. But he helpfully mentioned a contract he helpfully mentioned a contract that's been let to look at. This whole area, that strategy and whole area, that strategy and roadmap for intelligence and, you know, the technical use of it. I wondered who that contract had been led to and what the time frame was for delivering conclusions.

And whether the other point that was raised by Lady Ducey was the question about capital having enough capital for the IT. Being a businesswoman, I know very much how expensive that can be. If the Minister could say a little bit more about that, I think that might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

help us before report. In terms of the contract, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In terms of the contract, I don't have details in front of me. I am of course, aware there could be commercially confidential, be commercially confidential, confidential, the issues at play, which prevent the level of disclosure, that disclosure that she wants. But in this in the she wants. But in this in the spirit in in the spirit of trying to be helpful, I will certainly go away and take it back and if I can, right, right to the the noble Lady, I will also need to look at the.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Procurement bill, where we discussed at some considerable length what contract could and length what contract could and couldn't be kept from the public. The detail can be confidential, but the fact of the contract and who it is led to should surely be part of the public domain. It will should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be on websites. I'll certainly defer to the noble Lady Baroness Brinton knowledge of the procurement bill, because I think it went through the House before it was in the House. So I absolutely have to defer to knowledge, and I'm very happy to share what detail that we that we can share. Of course, under under the, under the details of the Procurement Procurement Act. So I hope that I hope that I hope that satisfies the the noble Lady will also go away and look at these these issues of, of capital funding.

I'm afraid I don't have the figures in front of me. But of course it's important that we find the that we fund all these systems adequately. And we would of course, contend that unfortunately for the past 14 years, some of the the investment in policing that we've that we'd like to have seen has been, has been lacking and we have been very clear about our, our wider approach as a government to investing in, in, in policing, particularly in neighbourhood policing. But policing at all levels is, is, you know, something that we want to improve on.

Previous recent experience.
15:35
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister for his response, but I'm frankly gobsmacked at the idea that the Minister suggested that my amendment wasn't needed because the Home Office had a role in deciding what it that the police had, and making sure that they had what they needed. But for more than two decades, report after report have documented the same weaknesses fragmented systems, wasted effort and vital intelligence lost between agencies. People who didn't understand would find that almost impossible to believe that, you know, vital intelligence can be lost between agencies.

But it happens. It's been happening for years and years and years. We cannot keep treating this as a series of isolated IT upgrades that are needed when what's needed is a national strategy with clear responsibility and sustained investment. There is no way past that. That is what's needed and that is what must be provided. This amendment does not prescribe the solution, it simply asks for leadership and a timetable to deliver what everyone thinks is now essential. The Minister also mentioned about, you know, going, talking to different people, finding out what was needed.

All you've got to do is talk to 43 police chief constables and they'll tell you exactly what's needed for free. You won't have to go out to thousands of people and run various issues and take hours and days and months trying to work out what's needed. Everybody knows what's needed. What's needed is the money, the will and the leadership. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 433

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by leave withdrawn. Amendment 433 Baroness Smith of Llanfaes my. Lords, I rise to.
15:37
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
>> Lords, I rise to. >> Speak to amendment 433 and 434. In my name I thank the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for adding their name to both amendments, and the noble Lord Lord Hain for supporting amendment 434. As I open this debate, I look forward to hearing contributions from across the House on how we can ensure that policing and youth justice in Wales genuinely meets the needs of the people of Wales.

I'll take the amendments in turn, beginning with policing, amendment 433 would remove policing from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act, thereby devolving responsibility for policing to Wales. My case rests on two central arguments. First, the current shake up in police governance across England and Wales, and what that means for Wales. And secondly, the reality of how policing in Wales is already funded. So first, the governance, His Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales makes this amendment particularly timely.

In England, PCC functions are expected to transfer to mayoral authorities. Wales, however, has no equivalent governance structures. That leaves a serious constitutional gap with no clarity as to where these powers will ultimately sit. This moment therefore presents a clear choice either Wales is left in a governance limbo or policing is devolved to the Senedd, allowing Wales to take responsibility for its own public safety. It cannot be right that devolved English regions, such as Greater Manchester, can exercise greater control over policing than the democratically elected Legislature of Wales.

Secondly, funding what strengthens this argument considerably is the financial reality in 2024 to 25. My understanding is that only around 43% of policing expenditure in Wales came from the UK government. The remainder came from within Wales itself, with approximately 44% funded directly through council tax. In other words, the people of Wales are already paying for the majority of their policing. It therefore follows that policing policy and priorities should better reflect Welsh needs and Welsh circumstances.

The Welsh Government has, for example, used its health budget to support police officers working directly within the education system, engaging with young people on substance misuse, healthy relationships and cybercrime. This preventative work not only supports public health objectives, but also helps build trust between communities and the police. The geography and demographics demographics of Wales are markedly different from much of England. We have fewer large urban centres and many rural communities where access to services is already challenging. Centralisation, often driven by cost saving decisions made at a distance, has had a particularly damaging impact in Wales.

Court closures provide a clear example increasing travel times, costs and complexity for victims, witnesses, offenders and professionals alike. Within this context, policing must strike a careful balance, recognising Cardiff's role as a capital city while also addressing the unique challenges faced by rural communities where service delivery is often more expensive and more fragile. Wales is also a bilingual nation, yet the College of Policing, which trains officers for England and Wales, is not required to comply with the Welsh Language Act.

Welsh medium training for police embedded in Welsh communities should not depend on goodwill. It should be embedded as a core requirement that two points towards the need for devolved control. I now turn to amendment 434, which would remove youth justice from the list of reserved matters and devolve it to Wales. Youth justice is already, in practice, quasi devolved. The services that young people most frequently interact with education, health, social services are all devolved in Wales. The vast majority of young people who come in contact with the youth justice system are low level offenders, and many are dealt with out of court through youth burrows.

These burrows, run by local authorities, take a public health and restorative justice approach, and the Welsh Government's child centred framework. Children first, offender second has been widely recognised. Sometimes described as the organisation of justice, it reflects Welsh values and Welsh priorities, and once again funding tells an important story here too. In 20 2223, around 64% of youth justice funding in Wales came from devolved sources. While more recent data is not publicly available, there is little reason to believe that this position has materially changed.

That same year, the proportion of funding provided by the Ministry of Justice to Wales was lower than in any English region. For example, the Youth Justice Board Core grant made up 44% of total funding in the North East of England and 40% in the North West. In Wales, it accounted for just 24%, so once again, Wales is largely funding a system it doesn't control. The wider constitutional point. Scotland and Northern Ireland both have full responsibility for their justice systems.

Wales remains the outlier and this is not an argument for devolution. For its own sake, it's an argument for fairness, coherence and effectiveness. Many of the most powerful levers for reducing crime, health, housing, education and social care have been devolved to the Senate for over 26 years, retaining justice powers here at Westminster fragments responsibility and weakens accountability. When systems fail, it is often unclear who is responsible and communities pay that price. Welsh Labour's 2021 manifesto committed to pursuing the case for devolution of policing and justice, as set out by the Thomas Commission, we have had report after report, commission after commission.

This is not a moment for further exploration. It is a moment for action. So let Wales take responsibility for policing and youth justice. The people of Wales are already paying for these systems. They deserve the ability to shape them in line with their needs and values. The time is now. I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that His Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to these amendments as this Bill progresses through this House, I beg to move.
15:44
Lord Hain Portrait Lord Hain (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 166, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. printed on the Marshalled List. >> I have not added my name to amendment 33 433, but I have done amendment 33 433, but I have done so to amendment 434. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for having tabled it. The Welsh Government's child first approach to youth justice ensures that we centre the individual needs of children in or at risk of entering the judicial system, rather than assuming a service based approach.

In Wales, there's been a sharp and sustained decline in first time entrants into the criminal justice system over the last 15 years, which is testament to the effectiveness of this preventative approach. It also is a reflection of the commitment, resilience and compassion of youth justice professionals who work tirelessly to improve outcomes for children in conflict with the law. My Lords, there's plenty of evidence of the beneficial outcomes that devolution of youth justice could bring. And as the noble Baroness has pointed out, our UK Labour Government has a manifesto commitment to explore the devolution of youth justice for which this amendment calls children in the justice system tend to have multiple overlapping needs, often stemming from disadvantaged trauma and unmet developmental needs needs.

These are some of the children who need the support the most. And yet, due to the jagged edge of devolution, the system in support is not always as joined up as it should be. The devolution of youth justice in Wales, would, I believe, resolve that? And I speak as a former Secretary of State for Wales, I understand that Ministers and officials in both governments, both Labour governments, have been working together to explore options where responsibilities in the youth justice system could be realigned.

This initial work is a logical and practical first step, including strategic oversight, partnership and governance in in the funding and the funding of youth justice services. And it's important that these discussions are concluded positively and very soon, because they are a step forward towards creating safer communities and better life chances for children. My Lord, it is important also to acknowledge that Wales already holds responsibility for many of the services. The noble Baroness has pointed out many of the services that shape young people's lives education, health, social services, housing and local authority support.

These are all already devolved. These devolved services are the very ones most closely linked to preventing youth offending and supporting rehabilitation. Developing youth justice would therefore create a more coherent system, allowing interventions and support to be aligned across the agencies, reducing duplication and improving early intervention capacity. My Lords, existing Welsh approaches to prevention, community safety and rehabilitation could be applied more consistently if responsibility for youth justice were fully devolved. At present, justice remains a reserved matter and I acknowledge that our UK Labour government are facing pressures such as prison overcrowding, asylum problems and the legacy of inherited conservative neglect and chaos has had limited capacity to consider substantial structural reforms across justice responsibilities.

I do understand that, however, youth justice stands out as an area where immediate progress is both feasible and symbolically important, demonstrating renewed inter-government governmental respect and cooperation. In England, combined authorities such as the Great as Greater Manchester have been granted more devolved roles in probation services, enabling localised approaches to rehabilitation and reoffending education. Surely, if such an arrangement is suitable for Manchester, then a similar model could form a practical starting point for Wales, especially in the area of of youth, reoffending and justice.

The argument for youth justice devolution is also framed within the wider context of resetting intergovernmental relations. I applaud the fact that our Labour UK government has shown much greater respect for the devolution settlement, including improved adherence to the Sewel convention and the return of decision making powers over funding previously administered under the last government. Previously administered centrally under the last government, though they had previously been prior to Brexit under EU programmes. We should build on this by demonstrating tangible progress in specific policy areas and youth justice as a relatively contained and high impact policy area would be an ideal example for early action.

My Lords, in concluding, I hope that my noble friend, the Minister, will encourage greater understanding of this matter so that we can return at report with a win for UK Labour and Welsh Labour, and above all, for young people in Wales, without having to divide the House.
15:50
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments to which I have put my name, and as which I have put my name, and as the Lord Hain has made such an eloquent speech in relation to youth justice, I will concentrate on the police, because the arguments are identical, and the reason I say they're identical is that the three commissions that have looked at this issue, commissions not made up of politicians, interestingly hanging on to power, but individuals who have experience and expertise in the systems have all recommended the devolution of youth justice and the devolution of the police.

The first was Paul Silk, the distinguished clerk. Then I chaired a Commission of Justice in Wales, in which reported in October 2019, and then one had the report of Doctor Rowan Williams and doctor Professor Laura McAllister. All recommended it all do the same thing. Now, in view of the I was going to say the lateness of the hour, but the pressing need for a debate to occur at 4:00, it may be a minute or two earlier. I can I refer to paragraphs of the report that I that we wrote, the police is dealt with at paragraphs 4.77 to 4.151, and youth justice is dealt with at paragraph 4.181 to 4.195.

I give those paragraph numbers in the hope that someone in the Home Office might read them, because one of the problems of the report, which I the commission I chaired, submitted, is that no one has ever answered it. I assume it's never been answered because it's unanswerable, and it would therefore be important in the light of the forthcoming Youth Justice paper or the paper on the police, that this point is grappled with. The two fundamental arguments have been outlined by both Lord Hain and by Baroness Miller, namely, namely.

First, if you devolve everything else, you have to devolve police and justice. They are integral to the proper management of a system. And secondly, there is the democratic argument that if Wales is paying the greater part of what it costs, then there should be accountability. Certainly accountability greater than that enjoyed by the mayors of Manchester and London. But at the moment the accountability is the other way round. But why I think this is so important is that the view used to be expressed, that the people of Wales really weren't up to governing themselves, and that was in 19th century and early 20th century view that I think, thank goodness, has gone.

But now one asks, what is the argument against devolution? And it's very difficult to see what it is, and it will be a testing point as to what will happen. On the publication of this White paper. The government is is abolishing police and crime commissioners, and I express no view as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. But what it does is force the government to grapple with what happens in Wales. Is it going to set up some elaborate structure to avoid devolution, or is it going to face up to devolution? We shall know the answer to this in the forthcoming White Paper.

And I hope when the Home Office officials have read the paragraphs to which I've referred, they will see there is one unanswerable answer to this question devolution. But on the other hand, if they set up some elaborate structure, no longer will it be said, well, the Welsh aren't quite up to running their own police force. It might be said there are other reasons that politicians don't like giving up power in London. They they want to hang on. And one has already seen reflected in some of the remarks made in Wales across Wales, that it's about time that there were transferred to Wales these important powers to make the government coherent, rather than hanging on to them for what I hope I wrongly have understood or been told are purely party political reasons and hanging on to power.

I hope that's not the case, but the proof will be in the pudding of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

police white paper. Lord Sewell. We on these Liberal Democrat benches are grateful to Democrat benches are grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Smith of Llanfaes and the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Kung for tabling Lord Thomas of Kung for tabling amendments four, four, three, three, 433 and 434, and to Lord Hain for 433 and 434, and to Lord Hain for adding his name to 434 as well. In relation to the devolution of policing and youth justice to Wales, my noble friend Baroness Humphreys has signed both amendments as they agree with Lib Dem policy and our ambitions for Wales, but unfortunately she cannot be in her
15:55
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
place today. Our manifesto for the general election in 2024 promised to deliver a fair deal for the to deliver a fair deal for the people of Wales by devolving powers over youth justice, probation services, prisons and policing to allow Wales to create an effective liberal, community based approach liberal, community based approach to policing and tackling crime. But to the disappointment of many in Wales, the issue of devolving Wales, the issue of devolving justice to Wales was absent from Labour's general election manifesto, despite Keir Starmer committing a year before, in 2023, to introducing a take back control bill to devolve new powers to communities from Westminster.

This commitment appears to apply to England only and gradually, over the months since the election of the Labour government, their lack of ambition for Wales has become more apparent. After the State opening of Parliament in 2024, there was no mention of new powers for Wales in the King's Speech in July 2025, Lord Timpson said that the UK government could row back on its promises on the devolution of probation and youth justice, despite the Welsh Government beginning the groundwork to prepare for what they believe to be a realistic project.

Noble Lords have raised queries about the consequences of the decision taken by the government in November last year to abolish Police and Crime Commissioners, a decision that those of us on these benches applauded and at the time, noble Lords from Wales were concerned by the lack of clarity on the government's plans for the transference of the PCCs functions to Wales. The assumption was that the functions would transfer to the mayors in England and to the Senate in Wales, but far from gaining clarity, the answers they received amounted to pure obfuscation, and now we learn, in what could be described as a slap in the face to the Senate, that the functions of the PCCs are to be transferred to a new board, placing Wales's Parliament on the same level as a non mayoral authority in England.

On these benches we understand the difficulties so ably clarified by the noble and learned Lord in his speech. In his contribution to the sentencing Bill, of devolving just one part of a system. But where has English Labour's ambition for Wales disappeared to? For all the platitudes about mutual respect and co-operative working, sadly, the disrespect is beginning to show. So where is the recognition that Wales has been ready for the devolution of the justice system for the last 25 years at least? And where is the roadmap for our two nations to achieve that together?
15:58
16:00
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
make profound constitutional and operational changes. They are presented without convincing evidence that devolution of policing or youth justice would actually improve outcomes for victims communities or young people themselves. As a result of such changes, policing and youth justice are not isolated. Administrative functions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, whether his his staff have read the report that staff have read the report that contains all the evidence to say it's put forward without evidence,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must say, is not correct. I can't answer that from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't answer that from the Dispatch Box, I'm afraid. I don't Dispatch Box, I'm afraid. I don't have much staff either. Policing and youth justice. I think I got to a not isolated administrative functions. They sit at the heart of a single integrated criminal justice system spanning England and Wales. Police forces operate across borders daily. So too with the criminal justice system, intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism, serious organised crime and public order policing all rely on consistent legal frameworks, operational standards and accountability structures.

Fragmenting these arrangements would introduce complexity and duplication and risk at precisely the moment when policing faces unprecedented pressures. Policing in Wales is already delivered locally, it's locally accountable and is responsible to Welsh communities, police and crime commissioners in Wales set priorities based on local need. Chief constables in Wales are not directed from Whitehall on day to day policing. What is being proposed is not so much localism, but the creation of a new layer of political control over policing.

Those amendments ask your Lordships House to place policing and youth justice under the control of the Welsh Government. This has been run by Labour continuously since devolution began. It is therefore legitimate to ask what that government's track record tells us about its capacity to take on these serious responsibilities in area after area of devolved public policy, Labour run Wales has failed to deliver. Educational outcomes in Wales have fallen behind the rest of the United Kingdom on many international measures.

Health waiting times are persistently worse than in England. Major infrastructure projects have been delayed or mismanaged. Those are not ideological assertions. They are documented outcomes of more than two decades of one party dominance and failure. When systems fail in devolved areas. The response of the Welsh Government has often been to blame Westminster, rather than to reflect on their own actions or inactions. If policing and youth justice were devolved, who would be blamed if and when crime rose? Youth re-offending increased or serious failures occur.

Experience suggests that accountability would become more opaque, not clearer, and more robust. Constitutional change should be driven by clear evidence of benefit, not by political symbolism. It has not yet been demonstrated how these proposals would reduce crime, improve public confidence or deliver better outcomes for young offenders. Nor has it been shown that fragmentation would be avoided, how cross-border crime would be tackled more effectively, or failures remedied. For these reasons, we cannot support these amendments.
16:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Grateful to the Baroness Smith of Llanfaes and to the noble Lord of Llanfaes and to the noble Lord Thomas, and to my noble friend Lord Hain for tabling these amendments. Today I speak as a Home Office Minister, but I also speak as a resident of Wales, a member of Parliament for Wales for 28 years, a parliamentary Under-Secretary of state for Wales that helped bring devolution at the time, and a Welsh whip who took it through the House of Commons at the time.

So I'm a supporter of devolution and know my way around this patch. I just say to the noble Lady the government cannot support the direction of travel that she's proposed today in full, and I do recognise again the great contribution that the noble Lord Thomas has made in relation to this issue and the reports that he have brought forward. But the view of the government remains that devolving police and youth justice would require extensive institutional change, carry major operational and financial implications, and devolving policing in particular, would undermine the UK government's ability to deliver crime prevention and the Safer streets mission that we've got in Wales.

And I say to the noble Lady that she did raise the issue of finance. The position she mentioned in Wales is no different than the position across the border in in Cheshire, taxpayers there have a burden of funding carried forward and they do so in terms of UK central support. That's a common issue. And she doesn't have too long to wait soon. In fact, for the police settlement for the United Kingdom to be fully England and Wales, sorry to be issued very shortly by the Home Office, and I'm expecting that I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly. For him letting me intervene very, very briefly. He commented about it not being the right time about it not being the right time for Wales, but does this mean the Labour government's changing its view about police devolution in Scotland because it works perfectly well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well? The on I say to the noble Lady that there are there are significant differences between the position in Scotland and the position in Scotland and the position in Wales. Scotland has its own legal system, it has its own prison system, it has its own policing system and has had that for some time. In Wales we have a very integrated England and Wales court system. We have a very cross border east west relationship between, for example, the regional organised crime Centre that services my area of North Wales, where I live is a cross-border issue.

It's a cross-border cooperation. Now I understand and again, I've looked at, we've looked at the points that the noble Lord has made and we've looked at the reports that he has done. And I think from my perspective, attempting to separate elements of the offender management system from the wider criminal justice system would in practice, be extremely complicated and would lose some of the economies of scale that we have in the current arrangements, and would give a jagged edge on an entirely new and complex interface.

Now I know again, the noble Lord has looked at those issues, but I say that is the view of the UK government, and the UK government recognises the importance of Welsh partnership structures, such as the Policing Partnership Board for Wales, the Police Liaison Unit. But ultimately the government has no plans to devolve policing in Wales at this moment. Now, again, noble Lords have mentioned the decision, announced on the 13th of November last year, about the decision to abolish police and crime commissioners.

We've put in that plan and it will require legislation at some point to give effect to those proposals. And there will be further discussion in the forthcoming White Paper on those proposals. But we have committed to work with the Welsh Government and other stakeholders to ensure that new arrangements provide strong and effective police governance for Wales, whilst recognising the unique nature of those Welsh arrangements. And having said that, my noble friend again, and the Labour Government's commitment which the noble Baroness Brinton has mentioned, we are working with the Welsh Government to undertake a programme of work on the Labour Government's 2024 manifesto commitments around the issue of youth justice, which goes to the heart of one of the amendments tabled by the noble Lady.

And one of those amendments is therefore, that we are, in light of the manifesto commitment, trying to ensure that the youth justice system delivers effectively for the peoples of Wales. And we are undertaking a programme of work to try to meet that aspect of the manifesto commitment, which meets, in part, the objectives of the three noble Lords and lady who has spoken to these amendments. So I I'm conscious of time. I'm sorry. This is a very speedy debate. At the end of day's debate, pending the future debate that is due any moment now.

But I simply say that we can return to this, I'm sure, as the lady may do on report. But the view of the government, the of the government today is that that as I've outlined.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if he would look again at the funding of the police in Wales, because unless I'm mistaken, Manchester and London do not have a government that makes do not have a government that makes a grant, which the Welsh Government does to policing, first of all. And does to policing, first of all. And secondly, the argument has been that been put forward. But the that been put forward. But the arguments we've put, contrary to all of this have never been answered, and I hope it will be answered in the police white paper.

Good argument. It can be. Are it stands or falls by the strength of the argument. And the government in London has never had the courage, and those who seek political advantage have stood behind that lack of courage in failing to answer independent views expressed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government will answer those questions, and the government can make a very robust case for why make a very robust case for why devolution of policing shouldn't happen. And we are exploring, as I've said, the issue of devolution I've said, the issue of devolution of youth justice with the Welsh Senate and we will, and the Welsh Senate and we will, and the Welsh Government, and we will also in the police white paper forthcoming, look at what the governance system look at what the governance system should be in consultation with the Welsh Senate and also police and crime commissioners and the police chiefs in Wales.

That is a further debate. The noble Lady has opportunities to report to table this further, to get a fuller debate, and there will have to be legislation capacity at some point around the objectives that have been set in the announcements on the 13th of November and in the forthcoming White Paper. That is coming very shortly. So in the light of all that, and given the time that we have now, which I know is far too short to debate this in full, and I would like to do that at some point with the noble Baroness.

I ask her to withdraw the amendments. At this point.
16:11
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Lords, I thank the noble Lord, >> Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response. Although I must admit I am quite Although I must admit I am quite disappointed with the position expressed from from the government, and I certainly don't agree that it is too complicated to devolve policing to Wales. Yet apparently it's not too complicated to abolish PCCs and create a brand new structure. So I do not believe that argument or accept that argument.

But today, of course, we have a debate to to come after this. So I will be withdrawing these amendments today. However, I do think that we haven't resolved that argument in terms of from how the policing will be governed in Wales after the abolition of PCCs. So I hope that the Police Reform White Paper does include detailed proposals within it in relation to this. In terms of youth justice, there's some there's some positive steps there mentioned by the Minister. So it would be good to have further discussions about that detail between committee and report.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

But today I will withdraw these amendments. Thank you. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 434 also withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 434 also withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move the House be resumed. The question is that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary not will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty the King has signified his Royal assent to the following acts. Unauthorised entry to Football Matches Act, Sentencing Act and the Holocaust Memorial Act. Motion for debate. Government policy on the retail and hospitality hospitality sector.

Just before I start that, I would
16:13
16:14
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest Portrait Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
-
fact that the Lord speaker presides on this wool stuffed cushion on this wool stuffed cushion demonstrates that government is supported by business, but this government is the most government is the most anti-business that I can remember. Or perhaps because no one in the Cabinet has any experience of Cabinet has any experience of running a business, it simply has no empathy or understanding of its no empathy or understanding of its risks and challenges. I do not understand how the government can claim to be helping hospitality, small businesses and retail.

In her most recent budget, the Chancellor admittedly added a new lower rates multiplier but at the same time removed the previous relief and revalued all the rates massively upwards, leaving pubs facing eye watering increases. She also announced that business rate discounts would fall from 75% to 40%, and that from April there would be no further discounts. As Mark Wrigley, a publican in Manchester, wrote two years ago we paid £9,000 in rates which rose to £13,000 in 25.

This year it has been doubled to 31,000 and within three years it is expected to be 42,000. These figures, he said, are based on the so-called rateable value, a calculation that often seems plucked from thin air. Our rateable value is set at a scarcely believable 97,000. Our annual rent, he wrote, is 70,000, so the rateable value is 40% higher than the rent. And the madness gets worse when we compare our rateable value to other pubs and bars on the same street.

Some of them pay much less, but one has seen its rateable value soar from 50,000 to a frankly ludicrous 165,000. And this is being replicated across the country. So pubs are facing an average tax rise of 76%, while hotels are going up to 115%. Utility costs have risen by 57% in the last five years. Ed Miliband's energy policies have not helped, although perhaps he might feel that with every pub that closes, we're getting closer to net zero one pub a day closed last year.

Just think for a moment. What does this mean to rural communities, to employment and to the social fabric of our country? When a pub shuts, a small part of England dies, particularly in rural England. Local pubs are vital to combat loneliness and social isolation. They are places that welcome everybody, places where you belong. As soon as you walk in the door, places where you don't have to be invited to visit, places which literally a home from home for many.

If the Prime Minister's local pub, The Pineapple in north London, closed, he could easily find somewhere else to slake his thirst, drown his sorrows and contemplate his U-turns. In rural villages, however, which have already seen shops and post offices closed, there would be nowhere else to go, and the government's proposed intensification of the drink driving laws is clearly designed to stop these locals getting into the car and going to the next village, if indeed the pub there remains open, the Chancellor is effectively destroying pubs as much as it were her very purpose.

An estimated 89,000 jobs were lost in the hospitality sector after her first budget. UK hospitality predicts a further 100,000 jobs at risk after the November budget. And this week we learned that in the month after this budget, the number of staff on on payrolls fell by over 42,000, which is the biggest fall in workers since the pandemic. The lowering of the NI employer tax threshold seems to have been designed to kill off starter jobs, which are at the heart of the hospitality and retail industries.

Flexible working is key in both hospitality and retail, as Sam Carlisle, a rural restauranteur, eloquently put it, these are jobs that fit around lives. If zero hours contracts are abolished as planned under the Employee Rights Act, hospitality business might as well close altogether. I know from my own experience at the North Star that you must monitor rotas minutely. Retail and hospitality are significantly huge players in the economy. These sectors are less impacted by AI and should therefore be stimulated to grow and expand.

This is where the human jobs of the future will be and fiscal policy should be supporting them, not increasing the burden. When people work, their wellbeing tends to get better. Getting them into work will reduce the burden of benefits and reduce the strain on our healthcare system. Treating people for depression. When Team Domenica advertised for jobs for our pub, for every job we advertised, we got over 200 applications. What does that tell you? And the government's proposal for extending licensing hours is tokenistic.

Many pubs already close two days a week and are closing earlier in the evenings, as they can no longer afford the staff costs. Hospitality employs people from every socio economic background, from towns and villages all over the country, and the impact of so many policies all at once is confusing and devastating. Put simply, it means that pubs will simply not be able to afford to employ the people who need the job most. Tom Kerridge, the chef and restaurateur, has gone on record about the 148% surge in costs on one of his establishments.

I imagine he now has buyer's remorse, having been vocal about voting for the Labour Party in the last election, or indeed anyone else who took Keir Starmer at his word. When his Leader of the Opposition, he declared My Labour Party is determined to breathe life back into our high streets. Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy. Instead, they are now on life support. There are rumours of a U-turn on pubs, but nothing for hotels and restaurants. The hospitality sector must be looked at as a whole.

A friend of mine, who owns and runs three successful hotels and was planning to start a fourth, has changed her mind. Instead, she's having made redundancies in her existing portfolio and curtailed all capital investment. Without such investment, there is no growth. The employer, National Insurance changes alone cost her half a million on her bottom line, and hotels are facing a dual tax hike on top of business rates. There is now going to be an overnight visitor levy that Labour is allowing mayors to impose, so the steep rise in waste costs, national insurance and other regulatory costs means the £0.05 discount to the business rates multiplier announced in the budget is not sufficient to ease these pressures.

What is needed is the full £0.20 discount permitted in legislation. A new surcharge is being applied to higher value premises with rateable values above half a million. This is hitting high street shops, supermarkets, hotels and sports clubs. Twice as many retail premises are being hit than the online warehouses that this was supposedly meant for. In its 2024 election manifesto, Labour promised it would level the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurship.

I think this should now win the Booker Prize for fiction. Our local town of Heathfield in East Sussex has a charming cafe, the Pink Cabbage. It is run by an energetic, inspirational, entrepreneurial lady called Lucy Howlett. She employs 16 people, all local. The cafe is always full, the food is delicious and it's an important part of the community. She told me that after last November's Budget, having spent months mitigating as much as she could from the previous budget, she lay on the floor and cried at the end of that month, having paid all her bills, she had £23.

She decided to do tapas nights y tapas because the food can go on one platter, you can prepare it beforehand, so you need to employ fewer staff. I remember the days when being an entrepreneur meant that you grew your business, you employed more people, and you were an important contributor to the economy. Not that you had to think of creative ways to lose your employees. I've spoken previously about Heathfield Ironmongers, which closed after 100 years of trading. Since then, several other businesses in our two street town have closed their doors.

We now have seven charity shops and also suddenly sprung up, sprung up a Turkish barber and two Vietnamese nail salons. Cash only. How can they afford to operate when the traditional English shops have had to close, I wonder? The government claims to want more young people in work, but its policies have made it harder for them to find jobs. It is often said that one needs to be cruel to be kind, but the government's policies on the minimum wage are kind to be cruel.

Subsidising job opportunities and creating state funded work placements, as the government is suggesting, is not the answer. Enabling the private sector to employ more people by removing a punitive tax burden is a sustainable way forward. This government has said it wants growth, long term growth, but instead, because of the last two budgets, retailers and hospitality owners are facing harsh financial choices, forcing them to pull back on investment when they should be focusing on growing their businesses and creating job opportunities.

Napoleon, in an ill judged sneer, described England as a nation of shopkeepers, implying the English were too materialistic to be focussed on profit. The woolsack signifies a nation driven by trade and commerce. But where are we now? A nation of charity shops, of boarded up high streets and a plethora of the fake and illegal Harry Potter shops and so-called British tourist shops, which are creeping down from Trafalgar Square, down Whitehall, as I'm sure many noble Lords will have noticed, it is desperately sad that Nelson, on his column after his great victories over Napoleon, should have to witness the state promoted decline of our nation's proud history.

As shopkeepers. I beg to move.
16:26
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. My Lords, it is a great honour to rise in this House for the first to rise in this House for the first time. I would like to thank noble Lords across the House for their warm welcome. I speak today as Baroness Dacres of Lewisham, a title I hold with enormous pride. Lewisham is where I serve as the directly elected mayor, where I have proudly called home for over 40 years and where community resilience and ambition are part of everyday life, an area which is proud of its history of inclusion and.

Inclusion and being a borough of sanctuary, a place where you can eat your way around the world. My journey here has been shaped by a strong work ethic, a belief in fairness and opportunity, and a commitment to public service. I bring with me a background in science, computing and law alongside lived experiences rooted in place, community leadership and local government. It was a grant from Lewisham Council that allowed me to attend university and be the first in my family to do so, completing a degree in physical sciences with computing.

I worked at the UK Atomic Energy Authority. In later years, I undertook a degree in law and was called to the bar in 2006 while maintaining my IT career within investment banks and bringing up my son, the Honourable Donald Dacres. As a single parent. Together, these experiences have shaped who I am today. I'm deeply conscious that none of us arrive in this house alone. My paternal grandfather served in the RAF here from Jamaica during the Second World War.

My parents came to this country as part of the Windrush generation, seeking opportunity and determined to build a better future. They raised me and my siblings with a deep respect for education, a strong sense of responsibility and the belief that leadership is shown through example. Those values continue to guide how I serve, and I know they are values that are shared by my noble Lords across this House. Before turning to the substance of today's debate, I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to Black Rod and the Garter Principal King of Arms.

I'm also grateful to my noble friends, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Kennedy of Cradley for their support and friendship. I thank my noble friends Baroness Smith of Basildon, Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Wheeler for their support as I join this house. I also thank the the staff of the House of Lords and the Doorkeepers for their professionalism, guidance and yes, directions. I'd also like to thank my noble friends for their care and support of my guests.

On the day of my introduction, my family spanned four generations and my guests included people who have played a significant role in my life, including my former primary school teacher Tom Deveson and my law degree lecturer, Professor Vic Krishnan. Their presence was a powerful reminder of the lasting impact of education, encouragement and daring to dream. My Lords, these experiences bring me to the subject of today's debate and the positive impact the government's policies are having on retail and hospitality.

When shaped with local communities in mind in Lewisham and across the country. I know that retail and hospitality are central to the vitality of our high streets. Independent cafes, restaurants, market traders and shops provide jobs, support local supply chains and create welcoming social spaces. They are often the first step for employment for young people and an important source of flexible work. I have seen how targeted support town centre investment measures that boost footfall can make a real difference in Lewisham regeneration, improved public space and new housing have already and will continue to bring more people into our high streets, helping local businesses to grow, employing local people and invest with confidence when policy is well defined and well designed, with local communities empowered to make decisions, our retailers and hospitality businesses do not just survive, they thrive.

When policy is well designed. That is what happens. Positive intervention strengthens local economies, sustains livelihoods and helps to ensure that high streets remain vibrant and resilient. Retail and hospitality succeeds when policy recognises their role not only as economic drivers but as anchors of community life. My experience in Lewisham shows what is possible when government works in partnership with local leadership and local enterprise, and when the voices of communities are heard. As I take my place and my duties in this house, I do so with a deep sense of responsibility, determination and hope.

I look forward to contributing constructively to our work, informed by lived experience, grounded in community, and guided by the desire to improve lives. My Lords, I thank you.
16:33
Lord Hannett of Everton Portrait Lord Hannett of Everton (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. It's an absolute privilege and to congratulate my noble friend, Baroness Chris of Lewisham on an excellent maiden speech. Yeah, I am sure all noble Lords will agree with me that my noble friend is going to be a real asset to this house. Baroness Cass was born in south London, her parents coming from the Windrush generation, she represents the best of our country. My noble friend brings to this house a wealth of experience in local government, serving first as a local councillor and then as a Cabinet member, deputy mayor of Lewisham and then finally as the elected mayor of Lewisham.

A proud record, my noble friend is hugely respected and liked both in London and across the wider local government sector, demonstrated by how the day after taking her seat in the House of Lords, my noble friend was at Windsor Castle with her parents and son, receiving a OBE from Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal. I know she is already making friends across the house and I know, I know, all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing more thoughtful contributions as those just made going forward.

Welcome my Lords. I in this debate, an important debate on important sectors. In fact, the sector. I am particularly well versed in the retail sector. As a former general secretary of the trade union Usdaw, I try to avoid tribal politics often in these discussions because the issue is the most important thing. But I have to say to the noble Baroness, you kind of nearly caught me in to a debate of comparing records, but of course, the time wouldn't allow me to forensically examine previous legislation of the other side in maybe the 14 years of your office.

I look at the time we've been in office, and I see a determination, a government with values of trying to do the right thing, not just for employees, but in terms of employers, in terms of growth, in terms of vision for good. And therefore, I say when people criticise legislation of a government being in office a relatively short time, some you may humility of the trends started on your watch. I say that not to be adversarial, but to say that when you criticise a government in short term of office, one has to be honest and self-reflection of your own performance.

Now, more positively, I said, I know the retail sector and I know any legislation that comes in takes the time to bed in, and the full impact of legislation is seen over time. And I just want to draw two issues that I think make a difference and applies to these two sectors. First of all, the employment bill that was scrutinised rightly within this House has gone through, and history will judge its impact over a period of time. The other one that I think I should draw attention to, although there are many over the lifespan of many Labour governments, is the introduction of the national minimum wage, introduced in 1998.

I was a member of the Low Pay Commission for 11 years, taking evidence from employers, from employees, from economists, from a whole range of interested groups. And I remember at its introduction the critics, by the way, some in the trade union movement and many employers who declared this is the end of the world to actually lift people out of a low wage with a minimum floor was risky. That's 1998. It's 2026, and no government would even think about replacing it.

So my cautious note to the critics on any period of legislation is give it time, but also have a period of self-reflection. Now I'm confident, and the reason why coming into the House is important to me is I want to be a part of a government that has values at the core, that it wants to do the right thing by those at the bottom, and not just those who can look after themselves at the top. And I've seen this in evidence.

Will we get things wrong? Of course. But who doesn't? And it's for me, it's about the passion and the values of this party that I think will sustain itself going forward. Now I just want to draw reference to the Low Pay Commission again for this reason. It was a great example when I represented a Usdaw members in many of the big large supermarkets, and we had good relationships with most of the big companies. But not all employers are equal, and the invention of legislation, good legislation is a crucial part of our responsibility.

If we're about anything, it has to be about supporting those who are the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable and the most insecure. And I have to say, in these two sectors, there are many people who fall into that category, and it's succeeded because we prepared to take a few risks. We prepared to compromise. So I, in conclusion, don't want to make this just a kind of throw back at the other side. But if the other side is going to lead with its chin and let's accept pubs within decline under the watch of the previous government, it wasn't as the responsibility of the start of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this party. Thank you. Yeah. Well done John.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done John. I'd like to start by welcoming. Today's maiden speeches. One of the most civilised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the most civilised aspects of life in the Lords is the long table. And I had the pleasure this week of dining with the this week of dining with the triumvirate of the noble Lady, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, and the noble Lords Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord John of Southwark. And I know that they and the noble Lady Shar will make an energetic and positive contribution, as we've already heard from Lady Dacres, my noble friend, Lady Monckton of Darlington of Darlington Forest, started off with a stirring speech.

She explained clearly how pubs are struggling and waiting desperately for the extra help that the government has promised. The uncertainty of their position as
16:40
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
the government dithers is deafening. One minute Rachel Reeves is imposing a huge increase in their imposing a huge increase in their costs, notably on rates, through a bodged revaluation. And then we have a series of briefings have a series of briefings suggesting that not only pubs, but also hotels and others might also hotels and others might benefit only to have their hopes dashed by the Chancellor. Yesterday in Davos, hardly a Democratic in Davos, hardly a Democratic gathering. I hope the Minister will.

Grace will have the grace to share the Treasury's thinking with us. Parliament, my Lords, is paramount, however much the leadership might like to think differently now. I'm speaking today because my neighbour, who owns a London pub, thinks he will become bankrupt and have to move abroad unless substantial changes are made on rates. He has a pub with a hostel, not a smart hotel, a lodge in the bureaucratic vernacular. So he is in the category where rateable values alone will rise by 70% rather than 30%.

Can the Minister look into this unfairness? Add to this the quadruple whammy of one the increase in NICs two the steep rises? Yes, rises in the national minimum wage, particularly for young people. Third eye on family businesses that will still kill many of them. And for the new cost of the Employment Rights Act. Now multiply that across the economy and you have a crisis. So it's no surprise that thousands of pubs are closing. And my Lords, the position is going to erode further with the introduction of a lower drink life limit.

It will strike a hammer blow to pubs in rural areas. Just look at Scotland and like so much modern regulation, it is not necessary. Those like me who take care to stay below the limit will stop going to the pub and the reckless will continue to drink and to drive. The government is right to say they will act on rates, but it is complex and I'm not convinced that Treasury Ministers have ever taken the time to understand what they have done.

What is clear is that growth is going backwards. And that brings me on to hospitality more broadly. It is a huge industry suffering from the quadruple whammy and from tourist uncertainty, not helped by the failure to tackle street crime. Magnets for tourism like music venues and stately homes are also in peril, and the visitor levy on hotels is a threat to a slowing sector already facing a high tax burden and mushrooming construction costs. And there's another long term hit the impact of slimming drugs, reducing demand in restaurants and for alcoholic drinks.

I have a relative who manages a vodka start up, assailed by National insurance and rates and a tougher economic backdrop, he's now working with a partner in the US, which they see as a more business friendly country. Even with today's rolling Trump news. Finally, I turn to retail. This is a highly productive sector, but it already showed us a disproportionate tax burden 7.4% of all business taxes, or £33 billion a year, according to the BRC. And there are more costs in the pipeline, not only rates, but also on packaging and recycling.

Employment is falling in retail, as in hospitality, and the government should be wary of increasing the burden there. Indeed, the sector saw the promise rates reform as a possible driver of growth, only to be gravely disappointed. My Lords, the truth is that this government has so far made a mess of the economy, taxes, spending and now inflation are up, whilst growth, productivity and employment are sluggish. I believe this partly reflects the government's ignorance of business, particularly less elite businesses like retail and hospitality was highlighted by my noble friend, the noble Lord.

Lord Timpson is an honourable exception, as is the noble Lord Lord Leong, who is winding up today. A useful New Year resolution would be for the Prime Minister to seek their counsel as he frames his overdue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

U-turn on rates. friend. Lady Monckton for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady Monckton for. Securing this important and timely debate today and wish her every success and good luck with every success and good luck with her pub adventure. And she, like others, will need some luck when being involved with the hospitality industry. May I also declare my interests as set out in the interests as set out in the Register, and in particular my financial interest as the chairman of the Association of Conservative Clubs, a role which I have undertaken since I stepped down as the CEO last year.

For the record, my Lords, I have worked for the Association my entire working life, having joined the team some 39 years ago. My congratulations to the four new members of your Lordships House on making their maiden speeches in this debate, and I sincerely wish them well and look forward to hearing their future contributions. My Lords, we are all well aware that the hospitality industry is facing a crisis that is worse than it has ever seen and astonishingly, even worse than it experienced during Covid pandemic and the lockdown.

We know this since there are daily articles in the press and coverage in the media about the plight of pubs, and in particular, the unfair rating increases which are set to cripple many establishments with eye watering multipliers that, for many, will be unsustainable over the next three years, putting the increases in wages which affects all employers, and food inflation and other costs. To one side, it is the issue of business rates and the proposed increases, which have been seen as the final nail in the coffin.

And I am pleased, therefore, that noises from His Majesty's Treasury indicate that there may be
16:47
Lord Smith of Hindhead Portrait Lord Smith of Hindhead (Conservative)
-
-
some re-examination of this issue, with the prospect of some sensible arithmetic being applied. My concern, however, is that this appears to be directed towards the plight of pubs and pubs alone, and plight of pubs and pubs alone, and I would like to make a case for the circa 3000 private members social circa 3000 private members social clubs in their place. And I do not just mean the conservative clubs, which I know so well, but the which I know so well, but the working men's clubs, the Royal British Legions, Miners Welfare Institutes, Naval and Air Force clubs, railway clubs, Liberal and Labour clubs.

Indeed, all the social clubs that make up such a significant part of so many people's lives. Clubs which are not run for profit or underwritten by a hedge fund or a private equity firm as so many pub companies are, but which are managed by volunteer officers and committees. Volunteers employing some 12,000 people within the clubs. So often we hear how important pubs are to their cities, which is true. But my Lords, in every one of the member's social clubs, which I have mentioned, it is a community in itself, part of the fabric of many people's lives and absolutely essential to the social well-being of members, as well as the furtherance of the objects of which the clubs were formed.

As such, I would ask the noble Lord to Minister to feed back to the Treasury team that any help or assistance that may be on the way to help pubs is also extended to help clubs in the same way, for the same reasons and for the same outcome. In other words, a level playing field. My Lords, a society which socialises together is a stronger society, and our pubs and our clubs and our bars and our restaurants and hotels put that into practice every day.

And my Lords, as I said in my maiden speech ten years ago, virtual friends can never be the same as actual friends. So let us do everything we can to ensure that our clubs and our pubs and all the places where we socialise remain, so that we can continue to meet friends and to make friends in the years ahead.
16:49
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> It's the tradition in your Lordships House that maiden speeches are heard in silence, originally as a mark of respect for originally as a mark of respect for the recently deceased father of the hereditary peer being introduced. This doesn't apply in my circumstances today, obviously, but I did lose my father six months ago, and I'm profoundly sorry that he's not here to witness my first contribution in this place. I first wish to express my thanks and gratitude to all members across the House for the warmth of your welcome and extend this to the staff, particularly Black Rod, the clerk to the parliaments, the doorkeepers, security guards, clerks, catering staff and all those who sustain the life of this remarkable institution.

Your support has made these first few days far less daunting than they might otherwise have been. I would like to thank my sponsors who represent important milestones in my life. I first met Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top at the age of 15 when, as my constituency MP, she came to speak in an assembly at Wolsingham Comprehensive School. It was she who sparked my interest in politics generally and labour values specifically, and she has been a steadfast mentor and friend for the past 35 years.

And Baroness Blake and I were contemporaries as leaders of our respective great northern cities, Leeds and Newcastle, building the case together for investment in the North through our collaboration in the Northern Powerhouse Partnership as co-founders of transport for the North and participating actively, in fact both chairing Core Cities UK. My Lords, growing up in rural County Durham, my post-school employment options were limited. I, like many others, found my first job in the hospitality sector in 1992.

I was paid £3 an hour to work in a fast food restaurant. I had a zero hours contract, no minimum wage, no predictable income, no sick leave or holiday pay entitlement, no trade union or pension rights. Thankfully, for retail and hospitality workers these days, successive Labour governments, including this one, have made progressive changes to employment legislation, bringing in more protections. But, my Lords, I still have my name badge from those days as a reminder that I am older than many of my rights, I welcome this government's recognition of the hospitality sector's importance and the steps already taken to stabilise and support it.

Expansion of the Small Business Support Scheme and Transitional Business rate relief are not abstract economic interventions. They are lifelines for the pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels and other venues that give our communities their heartbeat. But hospitality also offers us a wider metaphor for the kind of economy we want to build. No government can create a good society through policy or programme alone. By supporting businesses to grow and by encouraging them in turn to create more and better jobs, we can offer opportunity, hope and a sense of belonging for future generations.

My Lords, I belong to Newcastle. I am immensely proud to include the name of my home city in my title. At the time of my retirement from local politics, I was the second longest serving leader of the council, second only to Lord Beecham and being second to Lord Beecham, I imagine, is something that many members of this House have experienced in previous years, and I was also its first LGBT leader. I worked hard to create a culture of no outsiders, a place where everyone is valued for who they are and the talents they offer.

But I am concerned, my Lords, about the trend towards exclusion rather than inclusion that I witnessed during my 22 years in elected politics at various times in our history, some people have been othered and blamed for the perceived ills of all Jews, Muslims, LGBT people, asylum seekers, single parents. Many others have been and continue to be denigrated and dehumanised. We must be staunch in our opposition to these politics of grievance. They are divisive, corrosive and diminishing of all of us.

My Lords, there is much hatred in this world. But the answer to this is not more hate. It is the opposite. It is love. Love for our families, our friends, our neighbours, our communities, our country. Beautiful and glorious and imperfect though we may be, we always have so much more in common that unites us than divides us. I believe, my Lords, that the mark of future success of this nation is not the riches of a few, but the fortunes of the many.

I believe that opportunity should be universal, hard work rewarded, and that the purpose of economic growth is to spread wealth as well as generate it. It is therefore, with the spirit of ambitious and generous collaboration with Curiousness, about how we can change things for the better, and with a fundamental belief in the dignity and equal value of all, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. That I approach my service to your Lordships House.
16:55
Lord Bishop of Newcastle Portrait The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
EA. >> My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and to welcome him to your Lordships House. I also him to your Lordships House. I also extend a welcome to other noble Lords making their maiden speeches today. I thank my noble friend Lord Forbes for his excellent maiden speech. In this speech, my noble friend made some immensely wise comments which superbly illustrate his capacity for and commitment to the work he will undertake in this place.

His mention of the values that have shaped his life are those that we should all aspire to, and live out in our collective endeavours in this House. His calling our attention to the importance of inclusion in particular is vital. My noble friends, years of dedicated service to local government and his commitment to creating thriving communities will greatly benefit this house. His lived experience, coupled with his kind heart, fierce mind and strong spirit, underpins his integrity, determination and resolve to seek the welfare of people and communities, especially those in deprivation.

A keen listener and one who is ready to learn he is well equipped for his new role in your Lordships House. I wish him well and look forward to working with him in this place. My Lords, I turn now to the subject of this debate and thank the noble Lady Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest for bringing it to your Lordships House. I am aware that with the contributions of my noble friend, your Lordships are getting a double dip of North East input, but I hope this adds value.

Just yesterday, two chefs from Michelin starred restaurants in Newcastle and Northumberland warned of major hospitality job losses caused by higher tax bills. Carl Bailey and Kenny Atkinson said many businesses were on their last legs. For some hospitality venues in Newcastle it is too late, with popular and long standing venues having closed their doors permanently. Even in recent weeks. The North East Chamber of Commerce reports that many businesses use the temporary reliefs during Covid and subsequent energy crisis support to cover fixed costs rather than to invest, meaning resilience remains thin on the upside in Newcastle city centre bus reform and subsidised young person fares have increased evening and weekend footfall, helping the night time economy, which in Newcastle is rather lively.

We generation investments make the city a more attractive visitor destination which supports hospitality and retail spending. Information given to me by the North East Chamber of Commerce reports that the visitor economy supports around 63,000 jobs and contributes over 6.6 billion to the regional economy, representing 8 to 11% of regional GDP. The government's announcement today of the investment in cultural organisations is therefore welcome in its potential to boost the broader economic landscape. Similarly, the overnight visitor levy could be a tool to invest in communities and support better jobs.

Time will tell. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, be monitoring its impact in Northumberland? Coordinated tourism strategies, promote heritage assets like Alnwick Castle and the coastal Trail. This draws millions of visitors annually, boosting accommodation, cafes and retailers in towns like Bamburgh and Berwick upon Tweed. However, these gains are strongly seasonal. A cafe might be thriving in August but struggle in January, even as fixed costs remain year round. Government policies through business rates, labour regulation and demand side investment exert powerful and concrete effects on retail and hospitality in Newcastle and Northumberland.

An underlying theme, my Lords, is what policy does at a granular level to communities and their ability to thrive in the short, medium and longer term. This is a point that the noble Baroness made so eloquently in her opening speech. Now, my noble friend Lord Forbes and I have in common that we both grew up in the North East as well as the year of our birth, 1973, actually the year Sunderland won the FA Cup. In that regard, we will both have similar memories of the impact on communities, of the decline of industry and the knock on effect of that, on the economic prosperity of the region and on people, the effects of which are long standing and intergenerational.

And so, my Lords, the challenge now, which is also an opportunity, is not only to craft a policy environment that balances cost pressures with sustainable demand and opportunity for growth, but is to truly set forth a long term vision that enables the welfare and flourishing of people and communities not driven by fear and anxiety, but drawn by confidence and hope and economic sustainability. You join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend.
17:01
Baroness Verma Portrait Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
-
For this. Debate today. >> To the maiden speeches of noble Lords and congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Dacres of Lewisham and the noble Lord Lord Forbes for and the noble Lord Lord Forbes for their excellent contributions in today's debate. My Lords, I would also like to refer noble Lords to the Register of Interests as a businesswoman of over four decades. I suspect, like many noble Lords over the last 1415 months, we have met and spoken with many, many businesses a proportionately large number from the retail and hospitality sector.

The number of businesses. According to the House of Lords Library in hospitality in of Lords Library in hospitality in 2025 were around 176,685. So what does the noble Lord, the Minister, believe the number will be this time next year? Hospitality is the seventh largest of the main sectors, and almost all of hospitality, 99.6% are SMEs, 7% of all jobs in the UK in 2025 were in this sector. So what does the noble Lord, the Minister, think will be that number this time next year? My Lords, most businesses are started by local people to serve local communities, creating economic wealth and job creation in those communities.

The hospitality sector usually sits in the centre of these communities. They don't just add economic impacts to the country. Their presence, like other noble Lords have said, bring people together. Hotels help bring in tourism, along with pubs and pubs and cafes, restaurants, etc. we have social interactions which has an abundance of good health and wellbeing benefits. But my Lords, we have also seen a decline over the last 25 years. Of the numbers of pubs going from 60,800 in 2000 to 40 5000 in 2024, as stated by the British Beer and Pub Association.

My Lord, sadly, we have seen many of our industries leave our shores and that surely cannot be good for our long term desire to be a resilient country that can withstand the global sort of global shocks that are increasingly impacting on our everyday lives. Everyday costs to live. Instead of helping to support these incredibly important sectors. The attack on small and medium sized businesses has been blood curdling in reminding noble Lords. Most businesses are SMEs, local people investing their hard earned money into enterprise that very often will take quite a few years to show a return on their investment.

There was a time when we prided ourselves as world leaders for enterprise. My grandfather, who started his manufacturing business in 1952, my father in 1967, illustrated to us how this great country enabled anybody and everybody to be socially and economically upward, upwardly mobile, to be part of the economic growth of the nation and to give back to community. My Lords, I started my first business in 1980. My Lords, a brilliant example is the Ugandan Asian community who came to Leicester as refugees from Uganda and contributed to so, so much to my city, the city of Leicester, even though then the Labour Council had had advertised for them not to come to Leicester.

Will the noble Lord, the Minister, tell the House with will? Will the noble Lord, the Minister, tell the House? With the impact of the National Insurance hikes from 13.8% to 15%, with the increased minimum wages in April, the levels at which employers will now have to pay NI, going from £9000 to £5000. Many businesses in retail and hospitality facing Re-evaluations, which will see huge increases in their business rates, with levels of crime attacks on these sectors, increasing costs of insurances, property protection and other added costs.

How will the government provide support to businesses that are already reeling from what is sluggish growth? Can the noble Lord, the Minister, tell the House how many job vacancies have been filled with the pub? Is the hub initiative, and does he seriously believe that £1.5 million hospitality support is sufficient? And what has the response been from the hospitality sector? Finally, my Lords, if the government is serious about helping hospitality, what can it do to help reduce their energy costs and to help the noble Lord, the Minister, instead of providing advice on how to get net zero carbon, maybe the government could give products at zero or hugely subsidised costs if that.

If they are serious about climate change, reduce carbon emissions and above all, about supporting the continued existence of the hospitality sector.
17:06
Lord Borwick Portrait Lord Borwick (Conservative)
-
-
I first must declare my interest >> I first must declare my interest in that. My wife, Victoria is chairman of Visit England. That is what older peers might call the what older peers might call the English Tourist Board. I would like to congratulate all the noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches, who have made their maiden speeches, and I must congratulate the noble Baroness Monckton Lord Carrington Forest for securing this debate on such an important subject, and allowing me to open up an unimportant interest in my personal history, in that I was born in a hotel, so I can claim to be one of the few people to have arrived at a hotel stark naked.

Noble Lords may have left a hotel stark naked, in circumstances which I would really rather not know, but very few would have arrived at one in that state. Retail and hospitality are industries with much in common, but at least one important difference is that in hospitality, problems like babies tend to arrive at strange hours of the day and night, an inn keeper has to have someone responsible for solving problems available 24 hours a day, and someone who can solve problems at minimum cost is likely to be paid above minimum wage.

Retail has a much more predictable time cycle of problems, but they are no less urgent. Shot shoplifting is a growing problem for all retail businesses, and I believe that government policy could be more helpful. Science could be used in the form of permitting the more widespread use by shopkeepers of facial recognition systems in stores. I have little doubt that this will be considered on these benches in due course, but the more interesting subject is the problems that the two sectors have in common.

The most clear cut is that both sectors have a relatively high use of minimum wage labour, because they use a lot of young people. For many people, a job in retail or hospitality is that is their first interaction with that wonderful, valuable and rare creature. A customer. They learn something in their first job that will be invaluable and exciting, that customers can and must be satisfied. Some young people learn lessons in self-reliance from retail and hospitality that they have not received, not achieved in years of schooling.

With a bit of luck, they might have been at a school that has a scheme run by a fabulous charity called Young Enterprise, which teaches 15 year olds to run a small business, and hopefully the kids pick up entrepreneurialism through this route. That great charity founded by an old friend of mine, the late Sir Walter Salomon, last year taught more than 566,000 young people how to manage money, money and start a business. But no amount of entrepreneurial skill teaches you to cope with the biggest problem that retail and hospitality have in common.

That is the cost of taxation in the form of national insurance and business rates. No doubt other noble Lords would talk of the difficulties caused by a tax on jobs, as National Insurance is sometimes called by those not calling it a disguised income tax. But business rates have a peculiarity of rising fast and unpredictably. The recent rise in business rates have caused a lot of stress to shopkeepers, uncertain if their customers will be prepared to pay the increase in retail prices needed to finance it.

Of all the problems caused by government to business, the most intractable, intractable and dispiriting will always be taxation. And what is the solution? Entrepreneurs behind every retail shop and every hospitality pub is an entrepreneur. They need to be encouraged. If we're lucky, she or he will be a driven individual determined to do well despite problems. And these entrepreneurs feel unappreciated. So many of them are leaving for places like Dubai because of government policy. This happened in the 1960s and was called the Brain drain and their children.

The entrepreneurs of the future may easily never come back. That is one of the tragedies of socialism.
17:11
17:11
17:11
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
experience of the. Hospitality sector other than as as a Minister. I had responsibility for tourism, but I was engaged for a large part of my life, as was my family in retail. And I have to say, there retail. And I have to say, there are a couple of areas which I think we haven't touched on today. One of we haven't touched on today. One of them is the fact that customers habits are changing and have been for many decades. The traditional street and the shops and the high street are produce spilling out onto the pavement have passed, probably because somebody with a clipboard isn't going to ensure that the pavement isn't cluttered up.

But the other big thing, of course, is online retail, which has had a huge impact. So what I think we need to focus on here is the fact that we don't really and have never got a proper system gathered together for dealing with town centre and city centre retail. First of all, we make life as difficult as possible for people to get into it, and that comes back to parking in inadequate parking or very expensive parking, and wardens running round issuing tickets.

How is anybody going to buy anything of substance if they're forced on to public transport and the pouring rain? They're just people aren't going to do it. They're just going to go somewhere where they can stop at the door. And that was the lesson of America over many decades. And also with the other factor is that we writ smaller units in town centres at a much higher per square foot rate than you do out of town shopping centres and the supermarkets, of course.

And the big stores are a classic example of that. So unless those issues are dealt with, we all want to support climate change, but we have to be realistic. If you're going to keep pressing down and making coming into a city centre or a town centre more expensive and more difficult, people will go somewhere else because they have options. And I think that we need to re-engineer our town centres. We've talked about it, it's been around for years, but nobody's actually done it.

And it seems to me that all I hear of have to say, even at home in the last couple of days, significant retailers packing in because, say, Marks and Spencers have moved out of the town centre to a shopping centre on the edge and the footfall drops and the local retailer is left high and dry. So rates, whatever way you look at it, is an enormous cost. And of course when you add the costs of employing people, you get to the stage is why bother? And our local councils and I've been in local government myself for 25 years.

Local councils depend heavily on business rates for their revenue, and there is a temptation, oh, big business can cope with it and so on. And that is true to some extent, but it is not true in town centres by and large, because the big battalions, the Sainsbury's, the Tesco's, all of these people by and large, apart from their express units, go outside. And of course we've changed the habits, so we haven't managed to mix residential and retail and hospitality in our town centres in a sensible way.

And all we get is these vape shops, charity shops and so on, proliferating in these places and making the town centres completely unpleasant environments into which to go. So when you take the totality of the challenges that our retail sector is facing, and I have to say to government, to the Minister, he really needs to take this back to his colleagues because it needs to be rethought. And what we're doing at the moment is taking the existing problems and simply making them worse.

And some local authorities, for a perfectly legitimate reason of trying to improve climate change, are actually forcing people out, making life so difficult that people are just not prepared to, to to go into retail. So I hope that the this debate will stimulate the Minister to bring it back to his colleagues, because there is a widespread feeling, I think, on all sides of the House that much more needs to be done. My Lords, I'd like to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Monckton on securing this debate and to take us back to how she started with the woolsack, the woolsack currently sustaining the graceful and delicate form of the noble Lady Baroness Bull.

The people who designed this chamber knew what they were doing. England medieval was a one sector economy, as dependent on the wool trade as associated with that one sector. As
17:16
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
today Qatar is with natural gas, or the Maldives with holidays. And they were reminding us that they were reminding us that everything we do, we politicians, everything we do, we people in everything we do, we people in government is literally supported by the surplus of the private sector. And they knew that they sector. And they knew that they needed to remind us of that, and they need to remind us. Still, I've been struck ever since I arrived been struck ever since I arrived here by how readily people spend money that isn't theirs, how easily we expect the warmth and approval when we demand that more be spent on something.

But we never or almost never talk about where it's coming from. And I think that happens because of a bit of faulty wiring in our neural network. When a politician talks about public spending, it's received as though he's talking about his own money. So when he proposes spending more, he's thought to be generous, as though it was his own. And when he proposes spending less, he's thought to be mean, when in fact, of course, he's standing up for people who will never thank him.

Indeed, what the poet calls your children yet unborn, and begot the people who are not there yet, whom he is sparing from our extraordinary debt levels. And I think a similar dynamic happens with the very unpopular thing that I'm about to talk about now, which is what is really specifically hitting the hospitality sector as opposed to business more widely, which is the huge and unprecedented rises in the minimum wage. Again, people always personalise this whenever anyone criticises the levels of minimum wage, the the reaction is the rhetorically powerful but logically, utterly irrelevant question how would you like to live on £12.21 or whatever the current rate is? Well, for what it's worth, my first job like that of the the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle, to whom welcome and thank you for speaking so well.

My first job was also in that sector. I worked as a waiter in a golf club, taught me lots of things, some really useful things. For example, I've always since then been able to tell the difference between when a waiter has genuinely not seen you and when he's just busy. Not for me. A lifetime of making little squiggling gestures in the air ineffectively because I. I learnt that, but it also taught me punctuality. It taught me how to deal with customers.

It taught me how to deal with employers, how they are different from your parents or your teachers. The relationship is is an altogether more transactional one. And for me, as for millions, for my children, for, for, for for many others, I'm sure in this chamber that sector was the beginning of how I got into the world of work. And so the measure we should be applying is, are we making it easier for that sector to hire people, or are we, as we keep pushing up this wage level, are we privileging one section of low paid workers over everyone else, in particular the people who are looking for work and who are becoming more and more numerous? It's very difficult to have this argument without emotion.

But I'm going to invite you, my Lords, just to ask a couple of questions about the mechanics of these rises. When I joined your Lordships chamber, the minimum wage stood at £8.72. Now it's £12.21. It' absolutely extraordinary rise. We've gone from it being so low that it didn't really make much difference in the period that Lord Forbes was talking about to being, I think, the highest in the OECD after France and New Zealand and what's been what's been the impact of that rise? Well, we can see it in the unemployment figures, but we can see it also in the skewed incentives.

There are lots of things that happen when the minimum wage increases. First of all, some employers will simply claw it back in other ways. They will be less forthcoming with offers of subsidised purchasing, or help with travel or other perks. If it gets high enough, they will go elsewhere, either to automation or, let's be honest, to the large pool of illegal employment workers in this country. Perhaps over a million people. And something that I think is is almost never noted.

The people who are most affected as low paid workers are also consumers of the industries that are most affected. So if the minimum wage is passed on to customers, let's say in the fast food sector or indeed in hospitality generally, it's not so much members of your Lordships House who are going to be affected by the rising prices. My Lords, we have had prior to these rises, we've had 30 years of structurally low unemployment in this country. We had waves of people coming here from southern Europe because they had regulated employment sectors and high minimum wages, and therefore structurally high unemployment all the way through previous governments of both parties.

We managed to stay away from that and to remain a magnet for young people by heaven. We're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to miss that when it goes. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, it is a great honour to rise for the first time here in to rise for the first time here in your Lordships House, and I do so with a profound sense of humility to sit among members whose to sit among members whose experience, wisdom and dedication to public service I have long admired is both a privilege and a responsibility I do not take lightly. I begin by thanking the staff of this house, the clerks
17:22
Baroness Shah Portrait Baroness Shah (Labour)
-
-
Black Rod team, and particularly the Doorkeepers whose professionalism, warmth, patience professionalism, warmth, patience and today hydration have been extraordinary as I find my way mainly slowly around its procedures mainly slowly around its procedures and corridors. I am also deeply grateful to my two sponsors, my noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand and my noble friend Lord Katz, for the generosity, encouragement and guidance. The support has meant a guidance. The support has meant a great deal to me and I thank them sincerely for welcoming me, welcoming me so warmly to your Lordships House.

I also like to thank Baroness Meyer and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for helping me through this very surreal process. It is a great honour to be the first Jain in Parliament and swearing my oath of allegiance on Jain scripture was a moment of great significance for my community and family here in London, Kenya, India and beyond. My Lords, my journey to this place has been has been shaped by family, by education and by public service. My grandmother and my mother both lived lives of unshakeable commitment to their families, whose lives are marked by challenges and community expectations, but also by determination.

They believed deeply in education, not as an abstract good, but as a practical duty, route to dignity, independence and opportunity. My father, a small business owner, worked hard to ensure that my brother and I could stand on firmer ground than he had himself. I learned that progress is rarely sudden and never accidental. It is built patiently, through work, through service, and through a sense of responsibility to others. Those values have guided me through every stage of my life. They also sustained me through profound personal loss.

My husband, Richard, died in 2016 at the age of 36. Living with bipolar. He was a man of great kindness, creativity and an exceptional singer whose life was cut short by cancer. His experience deepened my understanding of mental health, of grief and of the fragile line many people walk while still contributing richly to their families, their workplaces and their communities. Ten years ago, my life was very different. I was a backbench councillor, a mum to a six year old carer to my husband and a history teacher.

Her life been different. I probably talking about being a head teacher rather than my elevation to this place. I mentioned this not for sympathy, but because it strengthened my conviction that public policy must be grounded in compassion and that our systems, whether in health, housing or employment, must be designed for real lives, not idealised ones. As I said earlier, my professional life began in education. Teaching is an act of hope. Every day you stand before young people and make a promise that their background need not determine their future.

I taught students of extraordinary talent and ambition, many navigating overcrowded housing, economic insecurity and uncertainty about what lay ahead. They taught me that aspiration exists everywhere, but opportunity does not. It is those experiences that led me into local government where I sought to turn principle into practice. As a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Brent, home of Wembley Stadium, I had the privilege of working with one of the most diverse and dynamic boroughs in the country. I led work in regeneration and planning, and my work was driven by a simple belief that growth must be inclusive and development should strengthen communities.

I encountered daily the reality of families living in temporary accommodation and young people being priced out of housing, often due to wage stagnation. These challenges that demand long term thinking and political courage, and I am proud of the work that we did to deliver housing of all tenures and play our part in tackling the housing crisis. Alongside this, I led work in economic development, with a particular focus on supporting local businesses and high streets. The subject of our debate today.

High streets are not merely commercial spaces, they are social infrastructure. When they thrive, communities thrive. When they decline, the effects ripple far beyond empty shopfronts. Working in partnership with the Mayor of London, I helped deliver programmes to support small businesses in Wembley to get online, recognising that digital access is no longer optional but essential, I championed affordable workspace policies, ensuring that start ups and growing businesses could access space that could genuinely afford and remain rooted in their communities, supporting businesses to adapt and grow the power of local, regional and national government.

Working together, my Lords, I come to this House shaped by education, by local government and by lived experience. I do not claim expertise in all fields, but I hope to contribute particularly on debate on education, housing and regeneration areas where long term thinking is essential. I look forward to joining your Lordships House and scrutinising, revising and improving legislation. In that spirit, I bring with me the voices of the students I taught, the residents I served, the businesses I worked alongside, and the families whose values brought me here.

I will endeavour to listen carefully, to speak thoughtfully, and to serve with integrity. My Lords, I thank you all for your warmth, for the warmth of your welcome, and I look forward to contributing to the vital work of this house.
17:28
Lord Rook Portrait Lord Rook (Labour)
-
-
Here. >> Honour to welcome my new and noble friend Baroness Shah to her place in your Lordships House, and a joy to congratulate her on her a joy to congratulate her on her beautiful maiden speech tonight. Tomorrow actually marks the first anniversary of my own introduction, and over the past year I have sometimes wondered what exactly I contribute to this place. Reflecting on my noble friend's life and leadership, it is abundantly clear that she offers a huge amount to this chamber and to this community.

Her experience in education will greatly enrich our work in helping to shape legislation that helps children to flourish and thrive in the future. Her contribution to grassroots politics and community life in Brent will deepen our understandings of what it takes to build stronger, more united communities at a time of growing division. Her distinguished service in local government will offer invaluable insight into how central and local government can collaborate more effectively and creatively, and her vision for the arts and creative industries will challenge us all to forge a future for our country as a creative superpower.

Last, but by no means least, as someone who spends a great deal of his time welcoming people of faith into this house, I am delighted to welcome Baroness Shah as the first parliamentarian from the Jain community in this country. Her presence here is a source of great pride to that community and an answer to their prayers. As I reflect on my own first year, it's the moments of humanity and humility displayed by your Lordships that have often made the greatest impression upon me.

When adversity is met with honesty, when courage meets crisis, and when sometimes the harder aspects of human experience have shaped the terms and tone of our deliberations, it is quite clear from my noble friend's speech that she brings all of those qualities in abundance. She spoke movingly and bravely about her late husband Richard, and her presence here honours his legacy. And to her daughter Emily, we say you should be very proud of your mum. And also, don't worry, we don't sit at weekends.

So the newly ennobled Baroness Shah will continue to act as your chauffeur and personal assistant, getting you to all your dance lessons on Saturdays. In commending Baroness Shah to me this week, a noble Minister said simply she is so lovely. She has so many friends in this house. It is our convention to use the term friend to talk about those within our own particular party. But despite this, I have no doubt that the noble Lady Shah will make many great friends across this house in years to come.

And to that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end, I welcome Baroness Shah as our new and noble friend. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning to today's debate, I rise to commend the government's recent support for pubs. This may recent support for pubs. This may be somewhat surprising. I speak as a lifelong teetotaller. I was brought up in the Salvation Army. brought up in the Salvation Army. My only taste of alcohol so far has been the occasional sip of communion wine, the occasional communion wine, the occasional cheeky portion of sherry trifle, and an occasion when my drink was spiked with ouzo on a holiday in Greece.

Despite remaining abstemious, which is even more surprising as I am now an Anglican, I recognise the importance of what government has done economically and socially to support pubs in the budget. The Chancellor did take decisive action to support pubs. She recognised the contribution they make both to our economy and our community. Treasury analysis suggested that pubs might have cost of over 45% increases in the next year, and as a result of action made by the Chancellor, that increase has reduced probably to around 5%, and that is not marginal.

That difference is the difference between survival, the ability to plan, the ability to invest. And pubs aren't just good for business for our economy, they're good for our community. And society has been picked up in this debate already. Research by Pub is The Hub, a non-profit organisation, demonstrated the critical role that pubs play, fostering community cohesion, social interaction and resilience. Research outlines additional services, both economic and social, provided by our public houses. Measuring social return on investment every £1 invested in services and activities delivered through a local pub generates more than £8 of social value to the community.

In return, our pubs provide places where people gather. They belong, they're known, they reduce loneliness and isolation in many rural and deprived areas. They provide a hub for services that may have otherwise disappeared. They contribute to individual wellbeing and to community resilience in ways that are hard to replicate elsewhere. For these reasons, it's possible for this lifelong teetotal Lord to raise a glass to our public houses, even if it only contains some lemonade and lime. And what's more, I wish to say cheers to the government for the support provided to the hospitality sector for the good of our economy and the good of our community.
17:34
Lord Harlech Portrait Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, my Lords. >> It's a pleasure to hear the very personal stories of today's maiden speakers, and we look forward very speakers, and we look forward very much to the fourth, fourth one coming. I also congratulate my noble friend Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest for securing this crucial and timely debate. I declare my interest as a board member of historic houses and the owner operator of hospitality assets in Wales. Like others, I rise to address the growing crisis facing our hospitality and retail sectors.

A crisis significantly exacerbated by recent government policy. These are not abstract, abstract statistics, but the livelihoods of 3.8 million people working in tourism related businesses. Hospitality sector faces a perfect storm inflation driving up costs while the cost of living crisis erodes consumer spending. Yet rather than providing relief, government policy has compounded these challenges at every turn. Let me be specific about the financial burden. The 2024 Autumn budget imposed 1.4 billion in additional costs through national living wage increases, on top of £1.9 billion in increased Employer National Insurance contribution and £500 million in business rates.

That is a cumulative 3.8 billion burden on a sector that is still recovering from the pandemic. As my noble friend so eloquently outlined in her introduction, the human cost is already evident. By July 2025, over 100,000 jobs had been lost, driven primarily by the rise in employer NICs. UK hospitality warns that current policies could see another 100,000 jobs disappear. These are not just numbers. They represent families, communities and our local economies. And my Lords, this comes at a particularly unfortunate time.

The recent Social Mobility Policy Committee of your Lordships House, and which I was a member, drew attention to the fact that there are almost 100 million council, 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. The hospitality sector has historically been a crucial entry point for young people seeking their first employment. And we've heard that example, personal examples from noble Lords today. Indeed, my first job during that hazy summer after GCSE was at a local go kart track where I learned the value of a hard day's work.

Yet just when we need these businesses most to provide opportunities for young people, government policy is forcing them to cut jobs rather than create them. Heritage businesses face particularly acute challenges changes to business, property and agricultural property relief mean 54% of historic house members cannot develop or diversify their businesses, whilst 41% are making redundancies or freezing hiring. We are forcing custodians of our national heritage to choose between their workforce and their heritage obligations. While Lord Dear, the tourism sector contributed £145.8 billion to UK GDP in 2023.

Yet we have allowed the UK to plummet to 113th out of 119 countries for price competitiveness. Visitors to the UK pay on average 43% more tax when visiting other destinations. We are pricing ourselves out of the international market, the proposed visitor levy adds further burden. Whilst Manchester and Liverpool's business improvement districts succeeded through genuine sector involvement and transparent revenue ring fencing. Without these safeguards, we risk creating another tax that discourages visitors and burdens the microbusinesses that comprise 76% of tourism enterprises.

The Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act presents another challenge the 14 day cooling off period for subscriptions creates perverse incentives. Members could sign up, visit multiple attractions and cancel for a refund, bearing no relation to the costs incurred. This affects historic houses. The National Trust, English Heritage, our museums, zoos and countless other attractions. We must allow traders to set deduction calculations based on the proportion of service actually provided. My Lords, the evidence mounts over 17,000 shops, offices and warehouses sit empty in rural areas and 37% of historic house members have not seen visitor numbers return to pre-pandemic levels.

We are witnessing the slow construction of a vital sector through accumulated policy decisions made without considering their cumulative impact. We on these benches urge immediate action and we look forward to the noble Lord, the Minister's response of how he is going to address these sector challenges. sector challenges.
17:39
Lord John of Southwark Portrait Lord John of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, my Lords, it's the greatest pleasure to rise in this debate and to give my maiden speech the last in a quartette from the Labour local government family. And I did wonder whether we look like a 90s pop group announcing our reunion tour. Firstly, firstly, I want to thank Black Rod, the clerk of the parliaments, the Doorkeepers, the police and all of the House staff who made my introduction such an awe inspiring and memorable experience.

And to all noble Lords for giving me such a warm welcome. And of course, I want to give my very real thanks to my noble friends Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who supported me at my introduction. Not only are they the real A-Team of the Labour benches, but they have been very real friends and champions of mine over many years, and both have strong connections with Southwark, the borough I led and which I am so proud to have in my title and which is now very widely and objectively regarded as the best borough in London.

Now, I understand that it is customary in a maiden speech to go a little bit Strictly Come Dancing contestant and to talk about my journey to this place. In my case, my journey began in Weston super mare. My parents were not political, but my Labour Party education came from my great aunt Peggy England Jones, who was the party agent and secretary in Swansea for many years and amongst whose charges was a young MP. My noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea, who I'm terrified to note has known me since I was age seven.

My journey moved from World Comprehensive School in Weston to university at Queen Mary College here in London, a career at the bar, practising for the last 25 years in contentious probate election as a local councillor in Southwark for 20 years, with ten of those as council leader and two and a half years as chair of London councils. In the last few years I've returned to practice at the bar, become involved in business and am proudly a member of the board at the Old Vic Theatre.

One of our very real national cultural gems. Yeah, and that journey has informed my political priorities and interests from delivering high quality social and private housing across Southwark to promoting the regeneration of a borough which not so long ago was seen as somewhere no taxi driver would take you because it was south of the river. My Lords, today you can look from the Shard at London Bridge to the Elephant and Castle, from Blackfriars Road to Peckham, and from Bermondsey to Canada Water, and see the demonstrable benefits of growth in new homes, new businesses and new jobs.

And from ensuring that every young person has the best start in life and vastly increased skills and training opportunities to ensuring that the arts and culture are something which are accessible to all and valued by many. And those are the priorities, my Lords, which will inform my work in this House, and why it feels appropriate for me to be speaking on this subject today, for I believe that local government has a critical role to play in creating the best circumstances for the retail and hospitality industries to flourish.

When Southwark embarked on the regeneration of the Elephant and Castle, few would have believed that it could so quickly develop such a vibrant new hospitality offer so that people of all ages now choose to meet and spend their leisure time there. My Lords, I'm pleased to report that the aim of recreating the elephants historic heyday as the Piccadilly of south London is well on the way to being achieved. But it did not happen by accident and that, together with other examples such as Borough yards and Peckham levels in the borough, demonstrate the critical role that local authorities can play in creating and curating the environments in which restaurants, bars and shops can prosper.

It requires vision and it requires confidence. Now, I'm not blind to the fact that the nature of retail and hospitality on our high streets is fundamentally changing. It has been for at least the last decade, and the complaints from the sector today are sadly not new. I'm sure it can sometimes feel that government gets in the way or adds unnecessary burdens, but my Lords, we will also all have seen, I'm sure, a cafe, bar, restaurant or shop which does succeed, apparently against the odds.

So my Lords, let's recognise the challenges the sector faces. Encourage local government to be the leaders in placemaking, which we know they can be. Support our local businesses and let us reject any counsels of despair. My Lords, let us be the optimists.
17:45
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome my noble friend Lord John and to thank him for his excellent maiden speech, which was both entertaining and wise. As both entertaining and wise. As befits a barrister of over 25 years standing. And I'm sure we were all impressed by his knowledge and his insight into how best to develop commercial and residential space where communities can thrive. These challenges are faced by so many local councils up and down the country, and we have so much to learn about how to do this successfully.

The transformation of the Elephant and Castle site from a rundown housing estate and shopping centre to a highly desirable residential, commercial and retail centre, is just one example of his skill as a hugely respected council leader in London. In fact, my noble friend at Lord Spellar who lives in the development at Elephant and Castle, described it as rather like one of the better parts of Manhattan. So that's indeed praise for the work that you've succeeded in doing. My noble friend Lord John has also been applying his expertise to work with other councils across London, helping to make London the thriving, attractive city it's becoming today, and his commitment to the arts, and in particular his work with the Old Vic and the Central School of Ballet, will also, I know, be welcome across this house.

He has a huge contribution to make to the work of this House, and I'm sure he will continue to make that impact in the months and years to come, and we will watch his progress with great interest. Thank you, my Lords has been much criticism from the party opposite about the passing of the Employment Rights Act and its impact on the retail and hospitality sectors. But I'm proud of the fact that this government delivered its manifesto commitment to bring the UK's outdated employment laws into the 21st century by passing the legislation in December, it will turn the page on an economy blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay, which the previous government was happy to see continue.

Instead, hundreds of thousands of the lowest paid workers will be protected from exploitative zero hour contracts for the first time, allowing them to manage their work and income and to plan for the future. Families will benefit from day one rights for paternity, parental and bereavement leave. Workers will benefit from improved sick pay and will no longer have to choose between their health and financial hardship, and the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that goods businesses are not undercut, undercut by bad employers.

So we're raising the employment standards to those already enjoyed by the better employees in the retail and hospitality sectors, and we're confident that these measures will be beneficial for employers helping to keep people in work, reducing employment costs for employers by increasing staff retention and creating a more loyal and motivated workforce. The government report on the legal and economic implications of the Employment Rights Act support our expectation that the act will have a beneficial impact. For example, it shows that far from being an outrider, the measures will simply bring the UK closer to the OECD average for employment law protections.

It also shows that in areas of new policy, such as zero hours protections, the adoption of similar laws in other OECD countries has led to productivity and employment improvements, and its economic and economic economic metric analysis shows that the act has a small positive effect on employment. As the bill was nearer, it's nearing its conclusion. Representatives from the main business organisations wrote to the Secretary of State, welcoming the outcome of the dialogue on the bill, which they said represents a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.

They went on to say, quote, now is the time for Parliament to pass the bill. This support from the business community was crucial to the passing of the bill, and set the way forward as to how we should work with businesses in the future, because underpinning these new rights will be a partnership between trade unions, employers and government, which will create a new spirit of cooperation. And this partnership will be crucial as we move forward with the next phase of implementing the act.

And we've made it clear to businesses that these new rights will not be implemented overnight. We've always said that we would engage and consult comprehensively on the implementation of the measures in the act to make sure that they work for everyone. This period of consultation has now begun, and it's important that all voices are heard and understood. My Lords, the implementation roadmap sets out a timetable for the phased introduction of the new rights, ensuring that all stakeholders have time to adapt to the change so that it works for everyone, and the consultation process will be supplemented by guidance and codes of practice with Acas and other delivery partners, providing time and resources to support the process.

All this should mean that employers, particularly small and micro businesses, have the time and the space needed to prepare with tailored support where necessary. So does my noble friend the Minister agree that the business representatives in the hospitality and retail sector should crucially play an active and positive role in shaping the detailed implementation of the legislation going forward so that their voices are properly heard. And does he agree that the Employment Rights Act, when fully implemented, should have a positive impact on the economy and on our vital, important growth agenda? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look forward to his response. Yes, my Lords. I'm going to start my speech with a special crisis at pubs face with figures from the British Beer and Pub Association. In addition to and Pub Association. In addition to the business rates problem, which I will refer to later, pubs face the issue of multiple policy changes issue of multiple policy changes which will affect sector costs. Firstly, there's the issue of wage Firstly, there's the issue of wage increases putting pressure on pubs margins.

The national Living wage rose by 7% in 2025, and is going up by 4.1% in April 2026. The national minimum wage rose by up to 18% in April 2025, and between 6 and 8.5% for 16 to 20 year olds. Forecast in 2026. Then there's been the effect of increased national insurance, the threshold for employer NI decreased from 9100 to 5000, and the rate of employers NI increase in April 2025 from 13.8% to 15%. In addition, there are the problems of the change of rules for packaging recovery notes.

Shifting the full cost burden onto brewers, the regulatory burdens and uncertainty of the newly introduced extended producer responsibility and the deposit Return scheme, I will discuss later. And of course, the reduction of the legal alcohol limit, especially affecting rural pubs. The trade body, UK
17:53
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-
hospitality key message is that the 2025 budget did not deliver needed changes, such as a rebalancing of changes, such as a rebalancing of the business rate system, easement of employment costs or reduced VAT. of employment costs or reduced VAT. Rather, there was minimal rates relief. Steep hikes in rateable values, wiping out the five key values, wiping out the five key business rate discounts for hospitality, as well as wage hospitality, as well as wage increases and holiday tax proposals. Rising costs and taxes add further pressures on business, resulting in job losses and closures.

Sector job losses since the 2024 budget have reached 100,000, and without immediate action this will continue, leading to reduced investments, further hollowing out high streets and fewer opportunities for young people. The group most dependent on hospitality for employment. Looking at the business rates problem in more detail, the £0.05 discount for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses is far below the £0.20 relief allowed under legislation, and the benefit is outweighed by steep rateable value increases. Hospitality faces far steeper, multi-year increases in rates, bills and supermarkets, warehouses, offices or banks, directly contradicting the government's manifesto commitment to levelling the playing field between high street businesses and online giants.

UK hospitality estimates that business rate rises will cost small hospitality business 318 million. An average pubs rates bill rises 15% in year one, reaching 76% over three years. A four star hotels rates rise 30% in year one, reaching 115% over three years. In comparison, online companies warehouse rates rise by only 9% in year one and 16% over three years. In contrast, large supermarkets see rates fall by 2% in year one and rise by only 4% by year three, according to the Association of Convenience Stores.

Local shops are also facing significant increases in business rates as a result of the 2026 revaluation and withdrawal of reliefs, whilst the ACS states that the introduction of lower multipliers for retail businesses was welcome, these changes do not go far enough. The multiplier needs to be set at a materially lower level to properly offset these increases and protect local shops. Transitional relief will only delay the impact of higher bills, but it does not remove it even when increases are capped.

Many retailers are facing rises of several thousand pounds from April, with full effect pushed further into the parliamentary term. Rather than resolve independent retailers, particularly those operating on petrol forecasts, are set to be hardest hit. These businesses benefited proportionately more from release that are now being withdrawn and face sharp increases. Despite the new retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier and transitional release package, these higher business rates cost directly affect the retailers ability to invest in stores, retain staff and continue to provide essential community service without further support.

Higher business rates risk undermining jobs, investment and the long term viability of local shops at community. Rely on every day listening to the noble Lord. The Minister's response to the Commons urgent question on Tuesday I got no version of a rapid response to the business rates problems for these businesses. So can I emphasise that the noble Lord, the Minister today? The urgency of the situation with his business experience amongst the Labour front bench, he must realise that remedial action is needed as soon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as possible. Hear, hear. My Lords, how perspicacious it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, how perspicacious it was of my noble friend Baroness Monckton to secure this vital business today. And may I also join in expressing my appreciation for her opening speech, which set the her opening speech, which set the scene for this debate, replete as it was, with illustrations and examples from her own experience, examples from her own experience, and also to congratulate newly minted noble Lords and ladies on the benches opposite for their maiden speeches. And if they're to be treated as a pop group, they sang, if I may Say So, a beautiful song in this chamber, and I hope they continue to feel very welcome in your Lordships House.

My Lords, George Orwell imagined his favourite public house. He called it the Moon under water, and he stipulated in post-war style that it should have draught, stout, open fires, cheap meals, a garden, motherly bar staff and no radio, while, my Lords, the prices have gone up since 1946 and I think you're more likely to hear music on nowadays in hospitality establishments. But even George Orwell, that master of English dystopia, could not even in his worst nightmares, have imagined the fate that awaits British pubs today under this government.

Indeed, his vision of the moon under water has given way to the grim reality of the pub under Starmer. And there was one fact in this debate which sums up all other points this indictment alone, that under Labour, one pub permanently closes every day in this country, and that is before all of the measures from last year's budget are fully implemented. My Lords, noble Lords opposite spoke with high mind about public services in this country. I have to inform you that in many places in Britain, especially in rural Britain, the pub is the only real public service that remains.

Hospitality venues are safe and hospitable places, one of the few on the high street where people can meet without breaking the bank, and British landlords are de facto
17:59
Lord Kempsell Portrait Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
-
social workers, changing lives as well as changing barrels. Weather, well as changing barrels. Weather, as we have heard in this debate, by giving young people their first job and income, or healing the epidemic and income, or healing the epidemic of loneliness that is faced by the old, how much more vividly the most humble member of hospitality establishment staff understands the establishment staff understands the daily reality of life in this country than those who sit in the Cabinet, not one of them who has run so much as a small business between them, let alone faced the scale of challenges that now confront the hospitality sector.

My Lords, from April, when the minimum wage increases and the new rateable values take effect, pubs, cafes, restaurants and other venues will face what for many of them will be impossible bills. Business rates for the average hospitality business will rise by 94% over the next three years. Like farmers, Labour is driving publicans and hospitality entrepreneurs to the brink of despair. The government has already moved in the budget last year to destroy their profits, and now they are targeting their revenues, which will mean many of them cannot even open.

I do hope that the right hon. Lady, the Chancellor and the other place enjoyed a drink in Davos. How much more she could have learned had she travelled instead to the dog and duck. I remember I'm old enough. It was only a few weeks ago when the government promised not to increase taxes on working people. There are no harder working people in this country today than those in the hospitality trades. So can the noble Lord, the Minister who speaks with experience and gravity on these topics.

Please inform your Lordships House of the answers to the questions that have been raised in this debate, because until those questions are answered by the government, it is no wonder, and it will be no surprise if every Labour MP continues to be routinely barred from public houses in Britain. And I do hope that the Prime Minister himself likes to use vending machines, because if he carries on like this with his policy, it may be the case that he is never served in a public house in Britain again.
18:02
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I. director of the Free Speech Union, and I congratulate the four new members on their excellent speeches. I want to draw your Lordships House attention to just one section of the Employment Rights Act and its impact on the hospitality sector, namely section 21, which extends the liability of employers for the harassment of their employees to third parties. From October of this year, employers will have a duty to protect their workers from third parties.

I should make clear that we're not talking about third party sexual harassment, which they were already liable for, but third party non sexual harassment. And what does that mean for the hospitality sector? It means employers will have to take all reasonable steps. Those are the words in the act to protect their employees from harassment by customers. That might not sound too onerous until you factor in that harassment includes indirect harassment, which has been defined by the employment tribunal as including overheard conversations, remarks, comments, jokes that an employee may find offensive or upsetting in virtue of their protected characteristics.

And it's for that reason that the Free Speech Union has been referring to section 21 as the banter ban. A couple of weeks ago, the government quietly released a 40 page impact assessment about section 21 that says it's likely to cost the owners of small businesses 23.7 million to familiarise themselves with their new legal obligations. With ongoing costs of £124,000 a year for ten years, the total cost during that period, it says, could be as high as 59 million.

That is, of course, a woeful underestimate. One of the assumptions in the impact assessment is that it will take business owners no more than half an hour to master their new duties under section 21 of the act. Half an hour, my Lords, that's not the view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission as set out in a briefing it produced for your Lordships House. When we were debating the bill, the Ehrc drew attention to the conflict between clause 21, as it then was, and existing anti-discrimination provisions.

It said a third party may themselves be protected from discrimination, while their conduct could simultaneously be considered harassment by an employee. And that makes the legal balancing between rights and obligations difficult for employers to manage. In practice. I'll give just one example of the kind of conflict the Ehrc has in mind, and which hospitality businesses will now have to navigate should they prevent trans women customers from using the ladies lavatories? On the one hand, a female employee may have a claim for third party harassment in the tribunal if she finds herself having to share the facilities with a biological male.

On the other, a trans woman customer may have a claim for discrimination if the business owner, as a service provider, fails to discharge its duty under section 29 of the Equality Act, which makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a person who is using or seeking to use its services. My Lords, this is precisely the issue the women and Equalities Minister has been wrestling with since the Ehrc submitted its advice last October about how to revise the code of practice on services, public functions and associations, covering, among other things, access to single sex women's spaces.

We were told in this House only this week that the reason there's been such a delay in the issuing of this code of practice is because this is such a fiendishly complicated area of law, and it's essential the government gets it right. Yet if a government Minister can't master this area of law in three months, with all the legal resources at her disposal, what hope do publicans have to get their heads around it in half an hour, my Lords.

Section 21 of the act imposes a new duty on small businesses in the hospitality sector that touches on an incredibly complicated area of law, with real financial risks if they get it wrong. For many publicans, the cost of the legal advice alone, let alone the compliance costs, will be the final straw. And we're talking about just one section of the Employment Rights Act. Could the noble Lord, the Minister at the very least give retail and hospitality businesses a 12 month reprieve before strangling them with this new, profoundly unwelcome bit of red tape?
18:07
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, my Lords, it was a delight >> Yeah, my Lords, it was a delight to hear the four maiden speeches from Baroness Dacres, Lord Forbes, from Baroness Dacres, Lord Forbes, Baroness Shah and Lord John. And they do bring really meaningful experience to your Lordships House. I just wanted to empathise with Lord Forbes. I was in exactly the same position with my father ten years ago. My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, but a somewhat predictable one. I think all of the issues that came out were ones that I expected, mostly from the people that I expected to give them.

But I think it's been an important debate because it has been an opportunity to to air the pressures facing Britain's high streets. Now, some of those pressures are historic Covid, Brexit, things like that. Some of those pressures are general and local and such as the ones that the noble Lord MP brought out, like parking, the overall environment, the variety on the high street, the presence of anchor stores. But some of the pressures are can be laid at the door of the current government.

Noble Lords talked about the raising of the employer, Nic, which undoubtedly has had a catastrophic effect on employment in businesses. Retail and hospitality are very people centred businesses and are among the worst hit by this rise. Lib Dems opposed this and we would scrap it. Energy costs have hit some sectors of the high street particularly hard, and hospitality is is much hit by the increase in energy. And we don't think that the government has demonstrated the the necessary practical understanding of what that has done to those businesses, SMEs, which of course pubs, many pubs are in particular are exposed to a deregulated energy market with little support after the previous conservative government.

The decision to slash the energy bill support for businesses by an average of 85% when it replaced the energy Bill relief scheme with the Energy Bills Discount Scheme, which itself ended in March 2004. We estimate that 3.1 million SMEs saw a total bill increase of £7.6 billion, £7.6 billion when the initial energy bill relief scheme ended. That's a huge benefit, my Lords. A couple of peers decided to relitigate elements of the Employment Rights Bill, and I'm delighted that they did.

The noble Lord young, as I said as he trooped out his greatest hit, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bring mine out. During the debate, the phrase banter ban I felt to be entirely revealing my Lord, since time immemorial. The phrase it was only a piece of banter has been used to justify homophobia. It's been used to justify racism, and it's been used to justify misogyny. And I think it's a very revealing choice of words. My Lords, my Lords, the Baroness Jones was more subtle in her relitigation, and I would take issue with some of the points that she's made, and no doubt the noble Lord Sharpe will will fail to resist that temptation.

However, I would note that she is correct in that there is still an awful lot of consultation, and of course, an awful lot of secondary legislation to come. So I would reiterate another of my greatest hits, which is I hope that when the noble Lord Sharpe stands up and brings this issue to four, he is able to persuade his front bench to actually engage in in meaningful debate on secondary legislation. And meaningful debate means jeopardy, that that secondary legislation will be voted down until His Majesty's loyal opposition meaningfully makes that threat, then the government is on a path.

So, my Lords, that that's that's that's done for the day, my Lords, for retail, the competition from online sales has continued to mount over the past 15 years. We've seen internet shopping increase its market share by five times to around a quarter of all sales. And it's clear that while some high street businesses also practice online trading, they can't compete with the global concerns supplied from out of town fulfilment centres. There have been government claims of levelling the playing field between the two retail models, but there is no such levelling.

And here we come to the bit about non-domestic rates. My Lords, I know that the Treasury has been busy, but I find it completely incredible. The recent claims of the Chancellor was surprised by the effect on retail and hospitality of the changes she's making to business rates. This time last year, my Lords, some of us were debating the non-domestic rating bracket multipliers and private schools close bracket bill, which is now an act. During the stages of this bill, my noble friend Baroness Pinnock and the noble crossbench Earl Lytton and myself spoke at length of the twin effects of the scaling back of the Covid relief and the future valuation that was, at that time, not available.

We noted that the phasing would not eliminate the sharp jump in rates. We launched a wider critique of the structure and effect of business rates, arguing that the government's proposals on multipliers were poorly targeted and risked damaging public services and regional fairness, rather than delivering genuinely fairer system for high streets. Baroness Pinnock repeatedly criticised the lack of an impact assessment, saying that the committee was debating in the dark and about a combined effect of the new higher multipliers and the withdrawal of the Covid era reliefs.

She argued that the government's claim to be creating a fairer system was not being met because the bill relies solely on rateable value rather than genuinely targeting online distribution warehouses. So despite all that, that that rhetoric about an Amazon tax and she was able to cite an Amazon warehouse near her home, which is levied at about £25 per square metre, versus a local shop in the town just nearby. At ten times that, at £250 per per square metre.

And that said, without a root and branch change in the way that valuations are put out, business rates will continue to penalise high streets and advantage large out of town operators. The noble Earl Lytton, with all his expertise, added further valuation data to this argument, which the government and the Minister simply ignored. Above all, we criticise the absence of meaningful impact assessment and the absence of new valuations. It's clear without these, the ministerial comments at the time were plain nonsense.

The Minister was reading out wild guesses and wishful thinking from the despatch box. But but, my Lords, by the time the Chancellor stood up this autumn, that information was available. So her comments at the time of the budget were either seeking to deceive us or she had allowed herself to be deceived. Either way, the new business rates will provide a hammer blow for many high street businesses, where rates are often more than rent, as we heard, and the Chancellor should and could have been aware of this when she made her announcement.

My Lords, there are of course, there is, of course, a need for holistic reform of business rates. And the Liberal Democrats have proposed a commercial landowner landowner levy. But in the short term, we also propose to lower the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier by the full 20 permitted under the legislation recently passed by the government, as opposed to to the £0.05 reduction which the government has implemented also in the short term, to further stem the haemorrhaging of businesses, we would cut VAT from 20% to 15% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions and we set out details of that before the budget.

Meanwhile, my Lords Parliament needs full details of the government's proposed U-turn on what exactly rates will be and who will be paying, what. Businesses need to know what they're facing. They need to be aware of the kind of changes that are coming down the track. And I have to say, the responses on Tuesday to the question that before your Lordships' House were completely inadequate. So to close, my Lords, if there is to be a recovery in our economy, it will come from a turnaround in consumer confidence.

For this confidence to materialise, we need vibrant and successful high streets where people go and buy things and enjoy flourishing hospitality. My Lords, there is a big danger that that will not be available and we're moving in the wrong directions. There is much to be done and I look forward to the Minister's response to this debate. Yes.
18:17
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I join in the general, congratulations and general, congratulations and welcome to the four maiden speakers. I enjoyed all of your speeches very much and I wish you all the very much and I wish you all the very best. My Lords, I'd also like to thank my noble friend Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest for Monckton of Dallington Forest for bringing this to debate to the House and for her most eloquent introduction. I also, of course, wish her very well with her her new pub venture.

My Lords, the government has been in been in power now for almost two years and it's been, frankly, nothing short of a disaster for our retail and hospitality sectors. Now, I applaud noble Lords efforts opposite to try and tease out some of the illusory positive. But the facts speak for themselves and the facts are these. Let me start with the £40 billion tax raid. This government, in this government's first budget, which included the disastrous jobs tax. This measure has frozen hiring across the sector and has led to unemployment going up every single month under their watch.

UK hospitality has reported that 90,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the jobs tax was introduced, 90,000 jobs that would exist if the government had listened to His Majesty's Official Opposition about the costs of their policies. I'm going to disappoint the noble Lord Lord Fox and not relitigate the entire Employment Rights Act, you'll be pleased to know. But I am going to gently say to the noble Lady, Baroness Jones, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are lower paid workers, who lack all security because they've lost their jobs.

That is a consequence of the government's policies. My Lords, the scale of the damage extends far beyond just hospitality. Overall, official figures from HMRC showed that the 2024 budget has led to more than a quarter of a million jobs lost, and unemployment is now reaching pre-pandemic levels. That is a catastrophic failure of economic policy and one that was entirely predictable and preventable. On retail specifically, the numbers are equally alarming. According to analysis by the British Retail Consortium consortium, the changes to the national employment rates and thresholds have added close to 2.5 billion in employment costs to retailers.

In retail, they say it is now 10% more expensive to hire a full time worker and 13% for a part time worker, and has been observed across the house. Many of us got our first start in in the world of work in part time retail work. I certainly did when I worked for Sainsbury's while I was still at school. Think about what that means though, for those numbers mean for young people seeking their first position. For students looking for part time work, for those trying to get back into employment, the ladder of opportunity that was offered to all of us is being denied to them.

It is. If our small businesses thought that the November 25th budget would offer some respite, they were surely sorely mistaken because instead of relief, they received yet another hammer blow. Britain's high streets now risk being crushed by what the Federation of Small Businesses rightly called a tax time bomb. So allow me to turn to the business rates that are affecting shops and cafes and pubs and hospitality across the board. Turning to pubs specifically, and again, I worked for a pub.

It was one of my first jobs and I would say to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere that I very quickly learned lessons there, including which regulars to serve and which to swerve. My Lords analysis from UK hospitality showed that the average pub faces a 15% rise in business rates next year. That will increase to 7000 more by 2028, 2029 and £12,900 over the next three years. These are average numbers, my Lords hotels, as has been noted by a number of speakers, are hit even harder with bills rising £28,000 nine £28,900 next yea and 111,300 by 2028 2029, totalling £205,200 extra over the next three years.

Excuse me. It is estimated that without urgent action, 540 pubs will close this year. Now, it's inevitably inevitable that not only our pubs but our breweries too are struggling. And in 2025, there were around 100 fewer breweries operating in the UK than the year before, which is a stark sign of the pressures that face the sector faces. The Society of Independent Brewers has warned that some independent breweries have seen their rateable values rise by as much as 300%, alongside new and rising costs that many simply cannot absorb.

Now, during a question yesterday, I, noble Lord and Union Baron opposite, suggested that brewers were making record profits. Where are they? This sort of attack on bosses is so 20th century. It's frankly embarrassing. And I would say to noble Lords opposite again, please look at the facts. These pressures are also being felt by heritage and rural businesses as well, and data from historic houses. As my noble friend Lord Harlech explained, shows that changes to business, property relief and agricultural property relief are having a severe impact.

54% of heritage business owners say they will be unable to develop or diversify, while 41% report that they will have to make redundancies or freeze hiring altogether. My Lords, the FSB has urged Ministers to make full use of the relief available for small businesses and allow a £0.20 reduction in the multiplier used to calculate bills, rather than reducing it by just £0.05, which would bring the discount back into line with the previous level. So, following on from what the noble Lord Lord Fox said, I'm going to ask the same question of the Minister will the government commit to do this? No doubt the Minister will talk a little bit about the 4.3 billion of relief measures and tapers that were aired on Tuesday during that question that I've already referred to, but that's the economic equivalent, surely, of giving with one hand, but taking with the other, but just not quite yet.

Is the government really saying that these businesses will be in a better place to play in a couple of years time? Because if they are, they need to explain why they think that, especially after the implementation of further legislation such as the Employment Rights Act. Now, for weeks we've watched the familiar post-budget ritual unfold a series of Treasury leaks on business rates, first relief for everyone, and then relief only for pubs. And as my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe rightly observed, one might have hoped that after the chaos ahead of the 2025 budget, the Treasury and Chancellor would have learned that governing by leak creates uncertainty and undermines confidence.

But sadly, it appears that old habits die hard. My Lords, businesses need decisions, not briefings. They need certainty, not speculation. My Lords, in addition to all of these costs, businesses across the UK face electricity prices amongst the highest in Europe and around four times higher than in the United States. These costs are undermining competitiveness, stifling investment and ultimately suppressing economic growth. The reason for these persistently high prices lies in the ideological approach to our energy policy, particularly the ever growing subsidies layered across the system to support renewables.

With the burden passed directly onto businesses. And as an aside, it's worth noting that in December 2025, 16% of hospitality businesses reported that energy prices were their top concern. This is very real. My Lords, and these high prices are a direct consequence of government choices. As my noble friend Lord Borwick noted, beyond economic crime pressures, retail crime is now a daily reality for too many small businesses as well. The Association of Convenience Stores reports over 57,000 incidents of violence against convenience store workers last year, forcing retailers to spend more than £250 million on security just to keep staff safe.

Yet shop theft and violence persist because enforcement has failed and repeat offenders face too few consequences. That is why it's so disappointing that the government rejected a conservative amendment to the sentencing bill that would have ensured repeat offenders usually go to prison, rather than receiving suspended sentences. So I asked the Labour Lords Minister why did the government reject this amendment? My Lords, the official opposition warned the government industry groups warned them the Federation of Small Business warned them and UK hospitality warned them.

But they've so far refused to listen. Our high streets are having a very hard time. Some might say they are dying. Our pubs are closing at an accelerating rate, jobs are disappearing, unemployment is rising every single month and small business owners who took the risk to start their ventures are being forced to scale back or shut down entirely. That's not just poor policy. It is a comprehensive assault on the very fabric of our communities and the livelihoods of millions of hard working people.

The government must act, and it must act now. So, to conclude, may I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, a few more questions. Firstly, when will the government publish the details of their turn on business rates, and will it ensure that retail and the wider hospitality sector all receive a business rate relief, which would also go some way to answering? My noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead question on clubs now. Recently, a report from Sky news suggested that the government has warned the hospitality sector that publicly criticising government policy could affect the availability of concessions or support.

Is that true? Could the noble Lord, the Minister, shed some light on this report? Representatives from the Valuation Office Agency told the Treasury Select Committee that policy teams across the Treasury and the then Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had access to data enabling judgements to be made about business rate multipliers and reliefs. Given this evidence, can the government confirm that Ministers did have the relevant information on the impact of business rates when these decisions were taken, and if so, why has the Treasury suggested otherwise? My Lords, I'll just remind the noble Lord of a couple of other questions that were asked, which I particularly like the answers to.

My noble friend Baroness Verma asked a very good question about how many hospitality businesses the noble or the Minister thinks will still be operating this time last next year. And my noble friend Lord Young of Acton asked a very important question about section 21 of the Employment Rights Act. And I'd be very, very grateful if the Minister could give us his thoughts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that. And with that, I'll close my remarks. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It is my privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty's Government, behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest for securing this debate. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful, informed and passionate contributions on a subject of real
18:28
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
contributions on a subject of real importance to our economy and to communities across the United Kingdom. I will endeavour to answer all questions, and if I have not done so, I will go through Hansard and write to all noble Lords and place a copy in the library. My Lords, I congratulate all my noble friends. Baroness Dacres of Lewisham, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, Lord John of Southwark and Baroness Shah for the excellent maiden speeches. They bring vast amounts of knowledge and insights in local government, regeneration, science, computer law, education, arts and culture and I look forward to working with them and listening to their contributions in this House going forward, my Lords.

I should also declare an interest. When I was much younger, I harboured ambitions of opening a nightclub. We called them discotheques in those days. In truth, however, I have spent far more time boogieing on the dance floor than on any serious business planning. And that, I fear, was the end of my nightclub venture. My Lords, it might have been a brilliant idea because it gave me the opportunity to set up various businesses, and since then I have become a sort of serial entrepreneur.

Before I joined the frontbench, more seriously, my Lords, I have many friends and relatives working in the hospitality, tourism, retail owning restaurants, wine bars and shops. Through them, I see at first hand the pressures these sectors face every single day rising costs, staffing challenges and the constant need to adapt. That personal experience informs my appreciation of just how demanding and how important these businesses are. Now, Lords, this debate resonates particularly with the noble Baroness Monckton and I would like to pay tribute to her remarkable charity Team Dominica and to his inspiring new establishment, the North Star of Brighton.

This pub is a powerful testimony and example of social enterprise in action. It supports young adults with learning disabilities and autism through vocational training and hospitality, while fostering inclusion, confidence and opportunity within the community that it was delivered. Despite some well-publicised cautionary advice from one from one, Mr. Jeremy Clarkson speaks volumes about the noble Baroness determination and vision. My Lords retail and hospitality are for are far more than economic sectors. They are part of what might be called the everyday economy.

They are woven into daily life, shaping how people work, shop, meet and socialise. They anchor are high streets and town centres, provide first jobs to many noble Lords and including myself and flexible work, and offers routes into long term employment and management for those who wish to build a career within them. My Lords, they also play a vital role in the character and vitality of our towns, cities, seaside communities and villages. I just want to note here, my Lords, that the contribution made by Lord young on Section 21.

I mean, I don't need to say any more. I think the noble Lord Lord Faulks have said everything I need to say. I was a victim of a bit of banter, but it was nothing more than racism. Commons my Lords. So I'll just park it there. My Lords, a successful high street is rarely just about shops. It is about cafes, pubs, services, culture and places where people feel welcome and connected. Retail and hospitality sit at the very heart of that mix.

My Lords, to summarise the impact briefly, in 2024, the retail sector produced something like £115 billion in gross value added, representing 4.4% of UK output, and by September 25th is supported by 2.8 million jobs. The hospitality sector generated 51.3 billion, about 2% of total economic output, and supported approximately 2.1 million jobs. While these figures are significantly only tell part of the story, the true importance of these industries is in their functions as local employers, community centres and catalysts for footfall, investment and civic pride.

The government is clear eyed about the pressures retail and hospitality face. In recent years, these sectors have weathered an extraordinary series of shocks. The pandemic, supply chain disruption, rising energy costs, inflation, labour shortages and profound changes in consumer behaviour. But government policy cannot remove all of these challenges. However it can. But it can provide stability, reduce unnecessary burdens and help businesses plan, invest and adapt for the long term. My Lords, several laws have mentioned about business rates, and rightfully so.

They have featured prominently in this debate. We recognise that the current system plays a disproportionate burden on many high street businesses, which is why we are continuing its reform in line with our manifesto commitment to protect the high street. From April 2026, we will introduce permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, benefiting more than 750,000 rate payers. A higher multiplier will apply to the most valuable properties offering, affecting around 1% of premises.

Helping to fund this relief in a fair and sustainable way. In addition, My Lords, we have announced a 4.3 billion support package over the next three years to protect ratepayers facing bill increases following revaluation. These measures are designed to ease pressure where it is felt most acutely, while ensuring local services remain properly funded. My Lords, on top of the support package announced at the budget, the Chancellor also commissioned work to look at what more can be done to support pubs, and further details will be announced in the coming days.

Treasury Ministers have met with a range of stakeholders to discuss business rates before and since the budget, including the British Beer and Pub Association and UK hospitality. My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken with real feeling about the future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of pubs at. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, the Minister, in Minister, the Minister, in outlining the rate the changes in rate system is talking about the process. Could he perhaps talk process. Could he perhaps talk about the outcome which, when conjoined with the reduction and conjoined with the reduction and removal of the Covid relief, leaves many businesses? Indeed most many businesses? Indeed most businesses paying more, not less, business rate? Will he at least acknowledge that from the from the Dispatch Box?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord for that, and I'm actually coming to that part of my speech that addresses part of my speech that addresses some of noble Lords concern. My Lords, many noble Lords have obviously spoken with real passion about the future of pubs, including me, and understandably so. Now pub closures are always painful, and closures are always painful, and each one represents a loss of place where people meet, talk and feel where people meet, talk and feel part of something local.

My Lords around 2000 pubs in England and Wales have closed permanently over the last five years. That is a matter of genuine concern, though it reflects a long term trend that predates predates recent changes to National insurance and minimum wage or business rates. Much of this reflects changes in how people live and socialise. People are drinking less often, particularly young adults, including my 19 year old daughter with a growing interest in low and no and rather low alcohol options.

The pandemic accelerated shifts towards home based socialising, remote working and more food and experience led venues. Costs do matter and the government continues to provide targeted support, including specific help for community pubs. But the future of pubs depends not only on managing costs, but on being supported or supported to adapt to changing habits and expectations. And our approach reflects that reality. Following the establishment of the Licensing Task Force last April, we published the National Licensing Policy Framework in November, and this was co-created with with Industry Council, various trade associations and government.

And the government works closely with the Hospitality Sector Council to improve the productivity and reliance of hospitality businesses by co-creating solutions to issues impacting business performance. Likewise, the Retail Sector Council is also undertaking to support growth, working very closely with government with a sustainability and circular economy. High streets, international trading and cybercrime are the main areas of focus. It sets out a vision for a simpler, more consistent and pro-growth regime that reduces bureaucracy, supports investment and promotes cultural and community life.

We will build on this work through further planning reforms to help hospitality and high street businesses grow and adapt, alongside regulatory reform, we are also providing targeted support. The government has introduced a 1.5 million hospitality support scheme, including £440,000 to help rural pubs diversify as community hubs. Delivered with the pub is the hub and this initiative is only the start. The government is committed to supporting pubs and further announcement will be made very soon. Now this has already unlocked more than 40 previously stalled projects, generating jobs and new services.

Industry research suggests that every £1 invested generates more than £8 in social value, which was actually mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rook. Now, the point about drink driving was mentioned by Baroness Neville-Rolfe. 1 in 6 road safety casualties involve drink driving. The government is consulting on lowering the limit, which is currently the highest in Europe. In 2014, an academic study showed no impact for the reduction of the limit in Scotland. Just to share with the noble Baroness we are consulting on this.

It is also right to recall the scale of support provided to hospitality and leisure during pandemic. These sectors were among the largest beneficiaries of emergency intervention, rightfully so, including furlough, business rates, relief grants, Vet reductions, government backed loans and measures such as Eat out to help out. That support helped many businesses survive unprecedented, unprecedented shock. Since then, many parts of the sector have seen a recovery in output and revenues, though I readily accept that this experience is not uniform and that pressures remain acute for some businesses.

Emergency support, my Lord, was by its nature, time limited and was designed to help businesses through an extraordinary period rather than to replace the need for long term sustainability. The government will continue to engage constructively and to support growth through skills, investment and proportionate regulation. As businesses move forward on a sustainable footing, my Lords labour and skills are central to the success of this sector. I recognise the concerns expressed about changes to the National Minimum Wage and national Minimum living wage, and to the noble Lord Hannan we are not the highest.

I mean the highest are countries with higher minimum wage are places like Luxembourg, Australia and Netherlands. Now, my Lords, working people have borne the brunt of the cost of living crisis. And it is right that pay reflects living costs, productivity and the wider economic conditions. In setting wage rates, the government relies on the independent expertise of the Low Pay Commission, which my noble friend Lord Hannett has mentioned. Balancing fairness for workers with the need for business to grow and employ.

Now. Concerns have also been raised about Employment Rights Act, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who was then the Minister, to take who who took this act through this House and businesses. My department is consulting daily with businesses of all sectors and trade associations in implementing the act itself. And there will be further consultation as to parts of the act and further announcement will be made in due course.

Economic growth is our foremost priority, but growth cannot be built on insecure or unpredictable work. By strengthening employment protections, we are improving stability for workers and employers alike and supporting a modern, productive economy. These reforms sit alongside our wider commitments to skills development, tackling economic inequality, accelerating construction and delivering a modern industrial strategy. Together, they form part of our long term plan for national revival and renewal. My Lords, I want to discuss. Sorry. I want to address directly the concerns raised in this debate, including by noble Lords who take a different view from government.

I recognise that for many businesses, particularly small operators, the pressures they face are immediate and personal. Policy choices, even when carefully designed, can feel very different on the ground. And that is why the scrutiny of this House matters. And I welcome that scrutiny. When noble Lords have raised concerns about costs, regulation or the cumulative impact of change, I want to be clear that the government is listening. We do not claim that the system is perfect, perfect, nor that there are no difficult trade offs.

Our task is to strike a balance between supporting growth, protecting workers, maintaining public finances, and enabling businesses to plan with confidence. Retail and hospitality succeed when high streets succeed through the Pride in Place programmes. We are investing £5 billion across 339 communities to renew high streets and centres. The Lord Borwick, who is elegantly suited to this afternoon, talked about retail crime and I think the noble Lord Lord Sharpe as well. My Lords, the government is committed to restoring visible, responsive neighbourhood policing, with 3000 additional officers in neighbourhood policing roles by spring of 2026 and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament.

We are also ensuring the right of powers are in place in the Crime and Policing Bill. We brought forward a new offence of assault, assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard working and dedicated staff that work in stores, and we are also removing the legislation that makes shop theft off and below £200 a summary only offence, sending a clear message that any level of theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. But funding alone is not enough.

That is why we remain committed to ongoing engagement with local authorities, trade bodies, businesses and workers so that policy remains grounded in lived experience. I just want to address the point that Baroness Morgan asked about Mr. Levy, and I think also a noble Lord Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked as well, the precise design and scope of the power for the levy is still under development. The government has published a consultation, a consultation which will run until the 18th of February 2026, to ensure that the public and businesses can shape the design of this power.

In closing, my Lords retail and hospitality are not engines of are not just engines of economic activity. They are places of connection, opportunity and shared experience. They matter deeply to communities across the country and they matter to this government through targeted support, community investment and community investment and proportionate reform. We are determined to work with these sectors and to adapt to a changing world. We may not agree on every point, my Lord, but I hope all noble Lords will recognise a commitment to engagement, stability and long term renewal.

I thank all noble Lords once again for contributions to this important debate, and I think I owe the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Fox an explanation as to the business which I will write to him. My Lords, I'm just very briefly, could I make a request to the could I make a request to the Minister? Could he actually, in his letter that he plans to write to us explain how many consultations explain how many consultations across the whole of government are currently being run? It's a huge number. I'd really like to know what it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what it is. Is the normal referring to the Employment Rights Act or just across everything? Well, obviously across everything? Well, obviously do not have the figures here and I will endeavour to find out and right to know law accordingly.
18:47
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest Portrait Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their all noble Lords for their contribution to this debate and particularly the for the quartette particularly the for the quartette over there, for their maiden speeches and also for their contributions. Very briefly, I'm just going to run through a few a few comments. The noble Lord Lord Hannett you're right, I agree with you. History will judge what the impact is of of raising the minimum wage. My noble friend, Baroness Navarro, thank you for talking about the drink drive in rural communities.

One of our local pubs repurposed an ambulance and they called it the Paralytic Unit, and they drove people home. So perhaps there's a business opportunity for that for some people. I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead for his passionate support of members clubs. Noble Lord Forbes of Newcastle congratulations on his maiden speech. The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, for telling us about what's happening in Newcastle. And I think one of the establishments that closed was called the Pickled Toad.

And I think that's such a shame to lose something with that name. I'd also like to thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for giving us such a vivid description of his birth, and for also recognising the importance of entrepreneurs. The noble Lord, Lord, Lord MP all the issues on town centres and retail are such an important thing. My noble friend Lord Hannan for talking about public spending and the importance of taking ownership of that money. Sorry, I'd like to particularly single out as a maiden speech the noble Baroness Shaw for first expressing what we all think in this House.

It is a surreal experience when you join, and I still haven't quite got over it myself, but also for so bravely sharing your own personal journey and family with all its sadnesses and challenges. I would like to also say thank you to the noble Lord Lord Rook. Despite being teetotal, still raising his glass of lemonade in celebration of pubs, my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising the issue of historic houses and the challenges that they face that is so often forgotten.

The noble Lord Lord John of Southwark taking us on his journey from Weston super mare to the House of Lords, but also recognising the challenges that the sector faces, I appreciate that the noble Lady Baroness Jones if, as she says, the Labour employment laws do increase employment in the hospitality sector, I will apologise. If she's not right. It won't be people in this House who suffer. My noble friend Lord Kempsell, thank you for recognising that publicans are very often social workers.

I've seen that already in in our pub and my noble friend Lord young for raising the indirect harassment. This worries me with my cohort of people with learning disabilities who are working in pubs, who have absolutely no social filter whatsoever, so I can imagine we will have some very interesting conversations. So noble Lord Lord Fox, recognising the effect of the National Insurance changes and of the rates, and for his suggestion of reducing VAT from 20 to 15, I think that would make a huge difference to pubs.

So thank you all. Thank you to the noble Lord Minister for recognising what needs to happen, and also for giving a shout out to the North Star. And I'd like to end by saying you're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all welcome to come to Brighton and have a drink. Thank you. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, I beg to move to the House. Do now adjourn.
10:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Bi; Lord Walker of Broxton
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page