Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Discussions with the European Union in relation to alignment with the EU Digital Services Act, and greater co-operation on digital services regulation

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question, standing under my name on the Order Paper.

15:29

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

The government regularly. policy, including direct discussions on the Digital Services Act, which, like the UK's Online Safety Act, requires companies to take proportionate steps to protect users online. While the UK has taken its own regulatory approach, we cooperate with the EU, where it supports UK citizens and businesses. The new EU UK digital dialogue will deepen cooperation on shared challenges, including AI and online

15:30

Baroness Gill (Labour)

- -

child safety. I thank the Minister for her response. There would be several economic, regulatory and strategic benefits if the UK were to be part of the EU's Digital to be part of the EU's Digital Services Act. Scale matters when it comes to dealing with the powerful comes to dealing with the powerful global tech companies. It's quite clear from the US's AI action plan it's not going to limit their it's not going to limit their powers, and DSA is likely to become a global standard like GDPR.

So I ask the Minister to confirm whether this government will include. It is a matter of urgency on the agenda of ongoing recent discussions with the EU, with a view to becoming a

15:31

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

member. We have reset our relations with European partners, improving diplomatic, economic and security cooperation, and we are committed to playing, to playing a role, to playing, to playing a role, shaping an open, trusted digital future. With the EU and other partners. We have the Online Safety partners. We have the Online Safety Act here. We have announced consultations on future measures, including on children's well-being and the EU. Digital omnibus is looking at lots of other aspects of reform and our new UK EU digital dialogue, announced as part of the reset, will provide a structured forum for ongoing engagement on digital policy.

15:31

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, my Lords, Lords, digital governance for online platforms relies on certain basic principles so that they should operate both transparently, responsibly and in alignment with legal standards. That, I think, is a formal basis that we should operate on too. But can I ask the Minister why, instead of having new laws that align with the EU, why do we not simply codify the laws that we currently have and make those applicable to these new areas, which are innovative and ever developing?

15:32

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

In respect of the Online Safety Act, we have the Online Safety Act, which is enforced by by Ofcom and other regulators. And as the noble Lord will know, we announced a consultation just recently on areas which we may seek to expand or take further measures to to enhance children's well-being.

15:32

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The Minister accept that as part of this dialogue, close cooperation on robust competition enforcement is essential to resist growing US pressure to weaken digital rules as the EU actively enforces its Digital Markets Act. Will the government commit to aligning in practice with strong EU enforcement standards, rather than allowing US corporate lobbying to dilute the regime?

15:33

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> The UK has taken decisive action to strengthen competition and to strengthen competition and fairness in digital markets, and in January 2025, Parliament equipped the CMA with new powers to boost competition and innovation in digital markets. In May, the government issued a clear steer to the CMA to prioritise this work and align action with international jurisdictions, including the EU and the UK, and the CMA engage regularly with EU counterparts as both regimes are beginning operation to help maintain close alignment on emerging issues.

15:34

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

- -

The EU already has has AI legislation. Is the government intending to bring forward its own legislation on AI, on AI and how to regulate it?

15:34

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

We are taking the approach in >> We are taking the approach in terms of AI, AI regulation, that we have regulators who are regulating, have regulators who are regulating, who are sector specific and who have the expertise to look at how AI is affecting there, the companies they regulate and the impacts of that. And that is the approach we are taking.

15:34

Viscount Camrose (Conservative)

- -

My Lord. Many digital harms, >> My Lord. Many digital harms, such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. So in that light, across borders. So in that light, could the noble Lady, the Minister, enlarge a little bit about the practical measures the government is pursuing with the European Union to ensure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom's work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act.

15:35

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

The Ofcom and the EU have a memorandum or have an agreement to cooperate and talk frequently. In terms of regulatory cooperation. Ofcom is also a member of a global network of regulators so they can share best practice and and work on further cooperation. This is.

15:35

Oral questions: Advice to the general public and businesses on mitigating and preparing for Iranian state-sponsored cyberattacks, sabotage or disruption arising from recent events in the Middle East

Fourth Oral Question Lord Harris of Haringey.

15:35

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

As recorded in the. and beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords, the National Cyber Security Centre is closely Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East and directly engaging with critical sectors, providing immediate and specific information and advice. They have issued an alert urging all organisations, especially those with assets or supply chains in the region, to remain vigilant. Whilst it is likely that direct cyber threat from Iran to the UK has not changed, NCSC advises organisations to strengthen their cyber security posture.

Now, due to the fast evolving nature of the conflict, the National Security Agency also issued guidance, updated guidance last year on countering the threat of sabotage, helping organisations to protect their sites from physical threats.

15:36

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, for that reply and I'm also grateful for what the National Cyber Security Centre has been doing in terms of targeted advice. But last week, four people were arrested by the Metropolitan Police under the National Security Act for what is being reported. As for spying against Jewish organisations, so there is an issue about that in terms of risk of Iranian sabotage. But there have also been a series of incidents across Europe and in this country of Russian inspired or Russian paid for attacks on various sorts of business.

So what is the general advice being given to the public, to small businesses and to larger businesses in terms of the precautions that they increasingly ought to take under the current international situation?

15:37

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

My noble friend raises an incredibly important point. And all of this comes down to our national resilience and making sure we're prepared for such threats. Before I highlight what we're doing in terms of the specifics of cyber and also cyber more generally, I just want to highlight that ministerial colleagues and the security services who have done so much in recent days to keep us safe, have met with including as well as the Minister, have met and spoken to a large range of Jewish and Muslim organisations to provide reassurance.

As well as meeting with my noble friend. Lord Mann and 20 councils provide reassurance to those who are so worried by the current conflict. In terms of the specific guidance, my Lords, the reality is in this space we need a whole society approach. Businesses have to take the lead. They know where their threats are, they know where their vulnerabilities may lie. But at this time, at this point, we need to make sure that we are collectively working together in terms of government actions.

We are bringing forward the Cyber Action Plan by spring, and obviously the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is currently in the other place.

15:38

Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)

- -

Defence production.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Needs for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now warfare steps up, as it is now doing. Is the government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapid and growing, are closely aligned enough with the plans of British industry?

15:38

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

plans of British industry? >> Noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to make sure that we're protecting British industry and that we're working with key allies. Last year, cyber attacks cost the economy £15 billion and this is a growing threat. So we do need to work with them. But we also need to be led by business because they know what infrastructure is there. But as noble Lords, some noble Lords will be aware, some of this is low tech as much as it's high tech, and people are seeking every single vulnerability, we all need to be cognisant of that and making sure that there is a genuinely whole society approach.

15:39

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We better make sure that the whole society is informed about the nature of the threat. Nearly a year ago, the Strategic Defence Review talked about the need for a national conversation led by the government, political leadership by the government to inform and educate the wider public about the nature of these new cyber and other hybrid threats from a number of different countries Iran, Russia, China and others. When is the government going to provide that political leadership through the national conversation which was proposed?

15:40

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> My Lords, I'm disappointed that not everybody looks at the NCSC website in the same way that I do to ensure that they're updated. The to ensure that they're updated. The noble Lord, the noble Lord, is right that we do need to make sure that people are aware. It's one of the reasons why it was so important in the run up to the national alert that we had on all of our phones last year, that materials were made available about what else could be done in terms of resilience, and what other things needed to be needed to be done.

I would urge all noble Lords to make sure that they are also protected. And one of the things that I am, I hate to do this, but my Lords, there is a cyber offer which is available to every member of your Lordships' House, and I believe only ten of us have access to it. So it would be very good at this opportunity that also all members of your Lordships House took up the security offering provided to protect us while we talk about others too.

15:41

My Lords, when my Lords, when we. Oh sorry my Lords, sticking. >> With the theme. >> Iran is a sophisticated actor. Iran works closely with Russia. We know the threats that Russia can generate, which are more than cyber. So I think it isn't just a time for a national conversation. It's a time to strengthen our national security narrative for the whole country. Does the Minister. country. Does the Minister.

15:41

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

I think Mr. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord. I think it's yes, I do agree. It's also about making sure that what we've got in place in terms of the foundations are right to, which is why some of the and we go from national security to national defence within this space, as well as our wider resilience programme. It's one of the reasons why the Ryecroft review is so important in terms of funding of our political parties, why the representation of the peoples Bill, which is in the other place, is key.

It's also why we're investing £170 million on the sovereign encrypted technology so that we can protect ourselves. But the noble Lords actually be right. The challenges from Iran are not one dimensional, they are multi-dimensional, and we all need to be prepared.

15:42

Lord Polak (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, when when Russia. Invaded Ukraine, we. Invaded Ukraine, we. >> Were very quick to sanction individuals and freeze assets. Can you, the noble Lady, tell me what assets we frozen of the late Ayatollah? His office, I believe, is still open in in Kilburn. Apparently there are flats and so on near the Israel Embassy in Kensington. What are we doing to sanction them? Yeah.

15:42

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

My Lord, the government has taken significant action in terms of what has happened so far. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We've also placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran's intelligence services, on the enhanced tier of the Foreign influence registration scheme, to better reveal any Iranian influence on the UK. We're also training frontline police officers on what state threats are and are not. In terms of the specifics, I will have to write to him.

15:43

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

We've talked a lot about cyber defence and of course that's extremely important. But you don't win a war purely through defence and be in no doubt we are at war in cyberspace. I do not expect the noble Lady, the Minister, to give us any details, but could she reassure the House that we're taking all the action that's necessary to go on the offensive in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this area, as well as to defend? The noble and gallant? Lord

15:43

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

>> The noble and gallant? Lord knows much more than I about how to fight a war. But he's absolutely right. We need to be prepared on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. We need to be prepared on all fronts, and I want to reassure him that we are making sure that we are. The National Audit Office

15:43

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

>> The National Audit Office recently examined the cyber threat facing the UK government and reached some deeply concerning reached some deeply concerning conclusions. It found that 58 critical government IT systems have significant gaps in their in their cyber resilience, and that the government does not even know how vulnerable at least 228 legacy systems are to cyber attack. They also highlighted a number of underlying weaknesses shortage of cybersecurity skills within government and insufficient coordination across departments. So, in the face of what the Nao has described as a severe and advancing threat, and with tensions in the Middle East further heightening the risk environment, can the noble Baroness set out what steps the government are taking to address these shortcomings and strengthen the resilience of critical government systems?

15:44

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lady will be very aware that the cybersecurity and resilience is other place, which is a starting point. I'm aware of what she has highlighted and and we are working across government to fix it. But there is also the Cyber Action spring.

15:44

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)

- -

My Lords, going back to the question of a national conversation and ask her a rather more prosaic question about what efforts the government are making to counter the kind of information which gives rise to very unhelpful behaviours, for example, hoarding of certain kinds of foodstuffs and petrol and other things. And is she aware, or is the government aware of any particular rise in that kind of behaviour at this moment?

15:45

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for the >> I thank my noble friend for the question, which is interesting, and I have not been made aware of any of those behaviours that have yet of those behaviours that have yet happened. I would say that that anyone that watches the news is aware of quite how volatile and uncertain the world is, and you could understand why. That is what I would say, both to members of your Lordships' House and to the general public, is that there is a responsibility on those of us that can look after ourselves at a point of crisis to make sure that we have at home, minimum levels of food and water, so that the state can look after the most vulnerable and deal with the emergency at hand.

All of that guidance is available on Gov.uk.

15:45

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Of. So much of this activity is >> Of. So much of this activity is from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why has our government not prescribed that? our government not prescribed that? To try and prevent this activity at source? And secondly, the growth of the rampant mis and disinformation which is causing Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and some indeed from right far right wing evangelical groups in the United States is now becoming pervasive. So what work is the government doing with Ofcom also to prevent that at source? Yeah.

15:46

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord will be aware of >> The noble Lord will be aware of my own voting record on the IRGC prescription. So let me be clear in prescription. So let me be clear in opposition. But let me be clear. Prescription powers are designed for non-state terror organisations, not state organisations. We have committed to take forward plans recommended by Jonathan Hall KC for a prescription like power for state and state linked bodies to tackle state hostile state activity, and that will come forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

With regard to the other points, my Lord, some of this action is happening in terms of media literacy training. The changes to the curriculum, how we also interrogate all of us, interrogate data and what we see online. The reality is, and I say this as someone who has lived and breathed some of the misinformation that is put out about people in this space is we need to make sure that we need to be very aware that what happens online really does have an effect offline, and that is increasingly the realities we have to manage.

Which is why my final words, my Lords, I want to put on, I want to say once again how services.

15:47

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lord, my Lords. Private >> My Lord, my Lords. Private notice question on pension schemes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ministerial powers Baroness Altmann. I beg leave to ask the questions of which I have given private notice, and the question is to ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the need for Ministers to possess powers, one to direct specific investment allocations for private sector workers pension funds, and sector workers pension funds, and two to make investment in government directed assets a condition of approval for automatic enrolment pension schemes. And I declare my interest as set out in.

My Lords. The Pension Schemes Bill contains a reserve power on asset allocation, designed as a backstop to the voluntary commitments made by the pensions

15:48

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

industry under the Mansion House Accord. The government does not currently expect to use this power were this power ever exercised. were this power ever exercised. Schemes that cannot meet the requirements without causing material financial detriment to their members would be able to their members would be able to apply for an exemption. Under the Savers Interest Test, the power is time limited and subject to consultation, parliamentary approval and robust safeguards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

approval and robust safeguards. My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for that answer. But

15:48

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

I'm afraid that if the government's main argument for including these powers is that it doesn't expect to powers is that it doesn't expect to need to use them, and will only use them if pension schemes themselves them if pension schemes themselves decide that they don't believe it is wise to actually achieve the allocations that the government wants them to achieve, then I have even greater concerns about those powers and I would urge the government to think again about overriding the trustees decisions about what assets to invest in.

In particular, my Lords, the government is trying to take unlimited powers in this bill to prescribe a percentage. We don't know what that percentage might be to invest in assets. We don't know which assets they will actually be. And even those who brokered the Mansion House Accord are saying, such as pensions UK and Abi, that they wish this to be reconsidered. My Lords, does the government really believe that it knows better than the investment industry how pension schemes should invest? And would it not consider that there is an example of the problems that the government might have in terms of its exclusion from the bill of some of the ideal vehicles, which could be used to invest in the very assets the government says it wants to support.

15:50

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Well, my Lords, as the noble Lady will know, we've been discussing this matter for some weeks now in the committee, and weeks now in the committee, and we'll be discussing it again on Monday when we come to the matter in the Report stage. So let me give her a brief answer to the points that she's made. I know she agrees with the government's objectives because she herself has previously advocated, indeed during committee, that we make pension tax relief contingent on 25% of new investment being allocated to UK assets.

So I know she wants the same thing that we do. To be really clear, the power is being taken as a reserve power to back the voluntary industry led Mansion House Accord, which said that by 2030, 17 of the largest pension schemes in the private in the private pension sector would be investing 10% of their of their relevant default funds into private investment, half of that in the UK. The expectation is the industry having done that will do it. The reason for taking a reserve power is because, as she knows very well, the challenge in the UK is in fact, too often people are competing in schemes on cost, not on value, and there is always a risk that for small competitive advantage, somebody may want to try and separate off from that.

So the reserve power is signalling very clearly to the industry. This is the direction of travel. So let's stay with it. All we're doing is backstopping that.

15:51

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

The government say this power is merely a backstop to the Mansion merely a backstop to the Mansion House Accord. But this is a gross misrepresentation. The pension scheme bill goes far beyond that and gives Ministers sweeping authority to mandate pension investments to whatever level they choose. The state should not be directing the allocation of private pension assets. Those decisions must be taken by trustees in the best interest of their members, not by Labour Ministers pursuing political objectives. This policy risks undermining confidence in the entire auto enrolment system, which was built on the promise that people's savings would be invested in their interest, not the government's.

So I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, a simple question will the government remove this dangerous and unjustified power from the bill?

15:52

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

There's a short answer and a long answer. My Lords, the short long answer. My Lords, the short answer is no. The long answer is that the government has made clear. Abundantly clear, because I've done it myself many times during committee what the purpose of the reserve power is, and it's to backstop the mansion house and trust commitments. And so to be really clear that both my, my friend, the pensions Minister, and I have made clear and he said again this morning at a pensions conference that he would make absolutely sure the government's intention simply to backstop those agreements was was there for the bill.

That's what the legislation's for. But I do need to correct something in particular. This power does not direct schemes into specific assets or projects. What it does is to set a broad framework aligned with the industry's own voluntary commitments. Under the Mansion House Accord, trustees retain full discretion over individual investment, selection and the balance between asset classes. The role of a pension trustee has always been to exercise judgement subject to constraints, and nothing in these provisions changes that.

15:53

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Could the Minister perhaps tell us why she thinks it is that pension funds are not currently investing, or have not been investing in the types of assets that she would like them to do? So that she would like them to do? So I ask that question because surely the better way forward is to understand what is stopping them understand what is stopping them doing so and fixing that problem, rather than telling them to do something they don't wish to do.

15:54

Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)

- -

Yeah.

15:54

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

so for the benefit of the whole House. I think I've just explained the main reason what the government believes the challenge is by believes the challenge is by international standards, we are really very low. I mean, so aiming for 10% Canadian schemes alone for 10% Canadian schemes alone invest 11% in infrastructure simply. And if the evidence is really clear that to invest a small proportion that to invest a small proportion of funds in the context of a diversified portfolio brings better returns for savers over the long returns for savers over the long run.

And the aim for this is to get better returns. For savers. There is too much short term termism in our markets at the moment, and the government's view is, and the evidence seems to be out there, it's because schemes are competing on cost, not on return and not on value. It's much easier to pitch to an employer on that basis, and not if we make clear the whole industry is going in this direction, then we believe that will be the case. The choices will still be there, the safeguards are still in place, and we believe that within the term.

15:55

My my Lord. House Accord target is 2030, and when will the government commence consultation as there hasn't been any yet? And what analysis has been done about the difficulties now reported daily of private credit funds and others not being able to make redemptions or exits? Would make redemptions or exits? Would the effect be that the government would be forcing workers pensions to be buyers of last resort? And is that fair when private sector workers don't have any guaranteed benefits? benefits?

15:55

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yeah. have made clear that we do not wish to use it and do not expect to use it. The timeline for the mansion

15:55

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

house is clear. The power expires if it is not used, and if any, any requirements are in place, they're requirements are in place, they're capped at that level and can't be raised thereafter. So this will only happen if it becomes clear only happen if it becomes clear that the mansion House is not able to. The courts are not able to be delivered on. So at that point the government would consult, it would produce draft regulations, and the process would then happen. But as I've made clear since, the only aim I've made clear since, the only aim is to backstop the Mansion House Accord, the evidence should come from what the companies are doing in the Mansion House Accord.

15:56

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

Black Rod. looking forward to discussing these issues at length in the forthcoming Report stage of the Pension Schemes Bill. Does she give me the real trick? Isn't so much directing the investment, it's finding the suitable opportunities in which to invest. And her noble friend, the pensions Minister, has talked extensively about the failure of. Investment in reservoirs over the last 20, 30 years. There is a failure there which has to be addressed.

15:57

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

My hon. Friend is quite right. >> My hon. Friend is quite right. We have had many opportunities. It's been a joy to discuss the Pension Schemes bill over many weeks, and that joy is set to to extend for some weeks to come. My Lords, in my noble friend, raises a really important point. If the government wants to make sure that people are investing in good projects, we need to make sure there are good projects to invest in. But also what we need to do is to make sure that there are vehicles for doing that.

The government has done a great deal already. The British Business Bank looking at sterling, what's happened with Sterling? 20 looking at making sure we work with industry to create the opportunities. But my Lords, there is clearly money to be made here. If international pension funds are coming to our country and buying up chunks of our infrastructure and our private equity, then we should be making sure these are open actually to our own pension funds to make money on them. No one is making them do it.

They're doing it because it's the right thing to do. So we need to make sure we enable it as well as encourage it. And the industry has taken the first steps themselves. We're simply making sure the backstop is there to make clear that this is where the direction of travel is.

15:58

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court (Crossbench)

- -

Hello. >> Hello. >> I declare my interest as chairman of the Scottish American Investment Company. I understand why the government would want to why the government would want to take reserve power, given the persistent failure of the City of London, one of the biggest global financial centres, to provide financial centres, to provide equity finance to British industry, over 150 year years, but equally successive governments record of direct investment, or indeed direct intervention, is poor, to put it charitably. Does the Minister acknowledge that government intervention carries a price in terms of market confidence, and will the government take that into account before exercising any reserve power?

15:58

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I thank the Lord for for an excellent question. With his background, I'd expect no less. The background, I'd expect no less. The answer. The simple answer is yes. But just again, to be really clear, the power does not direct schemes into any specific assets or projects. What it does is to set a broad framework. So all it does is to talk about about private investment as a whole, not about specific assets. And crucially, the safeguards are really clear. If the power ever comes to be used, a number of things have to happen.

First is there has to be a report commissioned and published before the power is used to make sure the conditions are right and to show the impact on savers interests and on growth. Secondly, there is a savers interest test. So if the trustees believe it would not be in the interests of their beneficiaries to be actually to follow the direction, they not only can they, but one would expect that their fiduciary duties would guide them to make an application for an exemption under the Savers Interest Test that is there to do to do that job for them.

And also, of course, there is the parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. So I hope that reassures him.

15:59

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)

- -

As the noble as the noble >> As the noble as the noble Baroness herself has just. >> Said. >> As a noble Baroness herself has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a noble Baroness herself has just said. The signatories to the Mansion House Accord signed up to a voluntary agreement to invest in UK assets. Will she agree that they assets. Will she agree that they were not aware that the reserve power, the so-called mandate element, was going to be in the bill? Does she therefore agree with me, with many of the signatories themselves and those in the pensions industry, that mandate goes well beyond the Mansion House Accord here.

16:00

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

My Lords, again, just to be >> My Lords, again, just to be really clear, the government designed this power specifically to backstop the Mansion House Accord. And that's our intention. And I'm And that's our intention. And I'm always open to suggestions if there are ways to make it any clearer than we have tried to do so far. And I've had a great opportunity to talk to many members of the House about this and many other issues, and I'm really happy to carry on doing that.

But in terms of the mansion House signatories, my Lord, the, the there was a very simple way for any mansion House signatories to make sure this power is never used, and that is to keep to the voluntary commitments that they've already made. Because if that happens, there will be no need for the power ever to be used. The government will not be bringing it in and everybody is happy. So that's the simple way forward here. The attorney general president with the attorney general, president.

16:00

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Mansion House Accord and the mandate that now sits behind it. People on the lowest incomes will find 10% of their pensions put into high risk, illiquid assets. Given that that pool of assets is currently now in very serious trouble, that are thanks to illiquidity. And this is prior to the Iraq war, which is going to burst the bubble. Will the Minister say that if she's going to force this through, that the government will backstop the losses that happen to those people on the lowest incomes so that their pensions are not wrecked when they reach retirement? Yeah.

16:01

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Just to be really clear, as I've >> Just to be really clear, as I've said before, were the power ever to be used, the government is very clear. The bill makes clear the government must commission a report government must commission a report which will look at the state of the market and look at the impact on savers interests, as well as as well as as wider impacts before using the power. So if what she's describing were to be the case, that would become evident, my Lords.

And that would of course, that would affect the government's decision. But secondly, again, just to be clear, it is because we want to look after the interests of savers that we want to tackle the fact standards, UK pension funds invest tiny amounts of money and therefore, as a result of not investing in private assets, it is savers who are losing out. And those those savers she describes specifically who are not getting the returns they need. Because of course, these are the default funds. So savers who know lots about this, who will want to make judgements about making sure their assets in the right place, they're already doing that.

These are default funds. So my Lords, it is not serving their interests. If they're simply being put into passive investing or things which will not bring the long term returns. But finally, the debate is, of course, back to the fact that the trustees are not being directed to invest in any specific asset or any particular project, and if they believe it's not in their interests, were the power ever to be brought in and they were ever asked to do this, then we would expect them to apply for an exemption to protect the interests of their members.

And if there was something about their members and the way she describes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that were relevant, then they simply have to write that evidence together. That's what the savers interest test is for. Noble Lady in the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lady in the Minister. My Lords, that completes our oral questions for today and for today so people can leave the today so people can leave the chamber quietly. And hopefully someone can unplug the clock and

16:04

Business of the House

16:06

Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill - report stage (day 5) part one

>> My Lords, I beg to move the Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be now further considered on report. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now further considered on report, as many of that have been, will say, content and not content. The content and not content. The contents have it after clause 160,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it after clause 160, amendment 384 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords, I fear I am a wholly inadequate substitute for my noble

16:07

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

friend Lord Attlee, who has now retired from your Lordships' House after 35 years of dedicated service. During that time he raised many important issues relating to haulage, including during the committee on this bill. While my noble friend was proud to be the only member of either House of only member of either House of Parliament with an HGV licence, I should admit with a little shame that I do not have a driving that I do not have a driving licence at all.

There's perhaps a lesson in that. Now that we've passed a bill to expel our hereditary colleagues with all their varied areas of expertise, leaving behind former apparatchiks like me. But I was very glad to support my noble friend's amendment in committee and to take up the cudgels now alongside the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because it's an issue which has a profound impact on many organisations across the cultural, tourism and heritage sectors, not least our heritage railways. As the noble Lord Lord Falconer set out very strongly in committee this weekend, he and I had the pleasure of being in Kladno in our capacities as president and chairman of the Heritage Railway Association for the HRA.

Annual awards. These celebrated the extraordinary achievements of charities, small businesses and volunteers of all ages from every corner of the UK. In keeping this much loved part of our national heritage thriving in the face of considerable challenges such as rising costs, employment, taxes and more. I was especially pleased there to see such strong representation from the North East of England, as we celebrated those responsible for marking the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey from Stockton to Darlington in such style, and I was delighted to see the Tanfield Railway, which charts its history back 100 years even further, to the age of horse drawn Wagonways become railway of the year.

That means that a small corner of County Durham now boasts the Museum of the Year in Beamish and the railway of the year just a few minutes away. But one of the things which makes the work of brilliant organisations like these harder is the way that certain police forces manage the movement of abnormal loads on our road network. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways is actually undertaken by road on low loaders. These movements are vital for the galas at which historic locomotives and vintage carriages bring such joy to people of all generations, not to mention inward investment to towns, cities and rural communities, as well as for essential maintenance and repairs.

These road movements are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors, and sometimes have to be accompanied by a police escort vehicle. The cost of these police escorts are typically between two and a half and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and in some cases even exceed the hauliers charges, with some heritage railways reporting charges that they've seen in excess of £7,000. For many of our heritage railways, which are registered charities or small businesses operating on very tight margins. These costs can be entirely prohibitive.

Moreover, there is widespread inconsistency in the application of these charges, with some police forces charging and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on the weight of the load, but some determine it on the length. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles through a particular police force area, with the rest of the journey going unescorted, but a full fee is still applied to avoid these charges. Some hauliers are now making large and unnecessary detours, which adds mileage and cost and increases the environmental impact.

In committee, my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer explained that a particular culprit in this regard is West Midlands Police, which many hauliers have been trying to avoid because of the unhelpful attitude that they've displayed. But of course, that's not very easy given its central location in England. Following the debates in committee and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Policing Minister Sarah Jones had a helpful exchange of correspondence with the acting Chief Constable of West Midlands, underlining the importance of adhering to the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs Council on this matter.

We're very grateful to the Minister for writing in the way that she did, and all hope that her letter and the change of leadership at that force will bring some improvements. But West Midlands is far from the only force causing dismay with an inconsistent approach or excessive charges. Heritage railways moving loads through Staffordshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland have all reported similar issues to those confronted in the West Midlands. And of course, this is a problem which afflicts which afflicts many businesses and organisations in every sector.

I've heard from the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, which represents the owners and operators of approximately 3000 holiday touring and residential parks across the United Kingdom. Their members to have experienced excessive cost increases when transporting static caravans to and from holiday parks, as well as significant delays from an inconsistent application of embargoes by various police forces. Most Troublingly, the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, say that despite the publication of revised guidance by the MPC last summer, they and their members continue continue to see very little improvement in practice given the need for clarity and consistency.

This is not a matter which should have to rely on the whims of individual police forces, or rely on the the good officers of the policing Minister, whoever he or she happens to be at the time. And this is particularly damaging for rural and coastal areas where tourism is one of the major sources of employment. If the government wants to support economic growth across our country, here is a clear area where they could act to help the growth creators. So can I ask the noble Lord Minister, who has been very helpful in discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, and me? First, what weight does the guidance prepared by the National Police Chiefs Council actually carry? What penalties or remedies apply if an individual force does not adhere to it? Second, is he able to set out some of the actions that the West Midlands Police have promised following the exchange of correspondence between them and the Policing Minister? And thirdly, the noble Lord Lord Katz said in committee that introducing a standardised regulatory framework would risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs.

But does he really think it fair that heritage railways or holiday parks in some parts of the country should be treated differently to others? And does he think it right to risk creating the sort of postcode lottery that we've already begun to see? Amendment 384, which the noble Lord, Lord Falconer and I are proud to bring on behalf of our noble friend Lord Attlee and building on his work, doesn't ask Ministers to intervene in operational matters. It simply requires the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage more clearly and consistently the fees that are charged to hauliers when escorting what may be drily termed in the industry as abnormal loads, but which ordinary people across this country would think of as inspiring locomotives, much loved holiday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

homes and more besides? I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 160. Insert the new clause as 160. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have added my name to emblem 384, which is similar to the one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. And indeed and debated in committee on the 15th of January.

16:14

Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)

- -

committee on the 15th of January. Police charges for abnormal loads is a cause which he very much made his own, as Lord Parkinson has said. And I'm sorry, but his retirement from your Lordships House just came a couple of weeks too early for him to be here to move the amendment today. As I said in committee, my interest in this issue is as honorary president of the Heritage Railways Association. Their members make extensive use of abnormal load road movements to move historic steam or diesel locomotives or vintage carriages between railways on low loaders.

Most commonly, this takes place in connection with gala events featuring featuring visiting locomotives such as that on the wonderful Severn Valley Railway from the 16th to the 18th of April, where the star attraction will be the Duke of Gloucester. Not, sadly, His Royal Highness himself, but the British Railways class locomotive carrying his name, numbered 71,000 and built at Crewe in 1954. There will also be visiting locomotives from the East Lancashire Railway and the Bodmin Railway. Events like these are taking place at heritage railways all over Great Britain, and are crucial to their survival and prosperity.

Their concern is that they may become unviable if police forces levy excessive charges for escorting abnormal load movements. The reasons for the escort charges have not been adequately explained, and there has been widespread inconsistency, with some forces making charges and others not. To avoid charges, some hauliers has no Lord Low. Parkinson says, are now having to take massive detours around and around the police force area, adding up to 100 miles to their journeys. Crucially, there seems to be no national policy or framework that regulates how or when police forces may charge for escorting these movements.

Although there is guidance offered by the National Police Chiefs Council, but this inconsistency results in arbitrary and often excessive fees in certain police force areas. I share the noble Lord Lord Parkinson's view of the efforts being made by the Policing Minister Ceri Jones MP, and she is very much on the case. She met Lord Ashley earlier this year and, as you said, wrote to West Midlands Police Acting Chief Constable taking a firm line on consistency and charging. I gather Mr.

Green has replied, but I don't know what he said. May I ask my noble friend, the Minister? His view on whether he feels that police forces generally have now come into line and are promising consistency and fairness in charging for abnormal loads in future.

16:18

Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I stand up to her. >> Baroness Pidgeon. >> Who I'm afraid is one of those occasions when real life catches up with your Lordships House and with your Lordships House and excludes her from stops her from being here today. But she does support this amendment. It is one support this amendment. It is one which, when you start to think about it, becomes under the heading of the no brainer. There should be a consistent approach. If you are taking on an economic activity to transport something across the country, you should have a rough idea about a consistent approach to actually transporting it.

If you haven't, there should be a very good reason. And my Lords, we don't seem to be one other than we've decided we'll charge them at this rate. Now, heritage railways are a nice cause, but there are more widespread, more universal economic impacts of this. If you transport goods on our main transport system without incurring extra costs, sometimes prohibitive costs. It would be a comparatively easy thing for the government to do, to at least bring them into line, and at least give them some steer as to what is a realistic level of charge to be placed upon them.

And very least, you can cut down admin considerations on this. I would hope that the Minister, when he responds, will be able to tell us it's all in hand, and they have a timetable for making sure anybody involved in this knows what is happening. So everybody can say thank you very much and move on to the next issue.

16:19

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

Lords. >> I. >> To support this amendment. Can I suggest that if, as I hope the Minister will agree that regulations are needed, they should not just deal with consistency, but they should impose a substantive they should impose a substantive limit on the fees that should be charged. And it would seem to me that in this context, as in many others, the maximum that should be charged is the cost to police context.

16:20

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, although the movement of abnormal loads may seem like a of abnormal loads may seem like a niche and marginal activity, my noble friend Earl Attlee, recently retired from your Lordships' House, retired from your Lordships' House, laid out a compelling argument at Committee stage for why this is not the case. The heavy haulage the case. The heavy haulage industry is a vital component of our national infrastructure and construction sectors. Yet the framework governing when police escorts are required and how much may be charged for them is inconsistent.

It is wonderful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has now taken up the mantle on this matter, and he began his contribution today by outlining his concern relating to usage by the heritage railway industry, usage of heavy haulage, an issue also made today by the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The issues are wider than that at Committee stage. My noble friend the Earl Attlee spoke with considerable authority on this matter and set out the difficulties that parts of the industry have experienced.

In particular, he highlighted the sharp increase in charges in certain areas and the absence of any national framework governing those fees. In some cases, police forces have charged for a full shift of officers, even where the escort itself may take a very short period of time. Industry representatives have raised understandable concerns that such practices can result in costs that far exceed the cost of the haulage operation itself. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of police forces apply the relevant legislation in good faith and without difficulty.

The problem appears to arise in only a minority of forces, where the absence of national guidance has led to practices that industry considers disproportionate. The result is uncertainty for hauliers. Increased costs for major infrastructure projects, and ultimately, inefficiency within a system that should be operating smoothly. The amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that there is a clear national framework. It sets out when police escorts are truly necessary as opposed to private self escorts, and establishes a transparent schedule of fees.

It also sensibly allows police forces to apply to the Secretary of State for flexibility in genuinely exceptional circumstances. To put it simply, this amendment balances the need for consistency with the operational realities that police forces face. And for those reasons, I am grateful both to the tireless campaigning of Lord Attlee and for my noble friend Lord Parkinson for continuing to push the government on this matter.

16:22

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> I will join all the speakers in debate on this, on this small but debate on this, on this small but important issue. Small in terms of length of time. Second, at least in praising the noble Lord Attlee, who after almost 34 years of service in this House, retired just a few days ago, and it would be very remiss of me not to join in paying tribute to him and his work, and also the tenacity of which he pursued this issue, particularly, I'd say, in recruiting the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester into taking up the cudgels on, on, on his behalf.

He was a true champion of heavy haulage industry. As Lord Cameron of Lochiel said, it's important that we actually focus on this not just because of the impact on Heritage Railway Association's. Dear as that issue is to many hearts in your Lordships House. But because of the absolute vital importance it has to our economy. Thinking about all the construction and infrastructure that we are, that we wish to provide, the noble Lord Earl Attlee did take great pride in being the only member of your Lordships House in holding an HGV licence, and I think in his absence he'd be I'd hope he'd be pleased to know that that, that that knowledge gap has been bridged.

I think in some part I can say by my noble friend newly in this house, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who by virtue of being a firefighter, holds or at least held an HGV licence for the purposes of of driving fire engines, and I think Earl Attlee would would have appreciated that on on to the the matters before us and the amendments, as noble Lords have have explained. This amendment relates to the setting criteria specifying when a police escort is required and charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads, and seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to regulate such fees.

And whilst I recognise the aim of this amendment is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such large loads, we do not believe that a new statutory framework is necessary. Changes have been already been made to support greater consistency. In May last year, the National Police Chiefs Council published new guidance outlining when police escorts should be provided for abnormal loads. This was developed in collaboration with policing, industry and national highways. The NPCC Abnormal Load Guidance 2025 is the national framework used by all UK police forces to determine whether an escort is required and, if so, whether that escort must be provided by the police or can be undertaken as a self escort.

Furthermore, a national framework setting out charges for escorting these loads already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the cost of policing in specific circumstances. Fee levels are set out in the guidance on special police services by the NPCC, and this is updated annually. Now, My Lords, introducing a statutory standardised regulatory framework, as I did indeed say at Committee on Repeat here, does undermine the ability of forces to respond flexibly, flexibly and proportionately to local needs.

The operational demands. We cannot escape this fact. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal movements can differ across the countries and influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic conditions and the availability of police resources. But I want to be clear that the government does take this issue seriously. And as we've heard the following meeting with the noble Earl Attlee, my colleague, the Policing Minister, Mr. Jones, has wrote to the West Midlands Police to pass on his concerns.

And and I think, you know that I'm grateful for the commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, noble Lord, Lord Falconer for for that that that correspondence. And as a result of this, I understand West Midlands Police are undertaking an independent expert evaluation to assess the force's compliance systems and processes against the NPCC guidance. I think it's important to allow time for the recent guidance to have effect before considering further action and furthermore, to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

The NPCC has committed to formally review their abnormal loads guidance 12 months after publication, that is in May of this year, a couple of months time. Now, I do understand noble Lords concerns around the adherence of police forces to this guidance. Therefore, I can confirm the government will write to the NPCC following Royal Assent to this Bill to remind forces of the need to follow the guidance. I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and actually in the same in the same spirit that my noble friend Lord Falconer asked where whether the wait what weight could be given to the to to the to the guidance issued by the NPCC and what actions might might be pursued by the West Midlands Police as a as as as a consequence.

Well I've already as I've already said, police are undertaking a review. This is NPCC guidance, which they themselves are reviewing to make sure that it remains current and and and and responsive to issues that emerge over over time. Whilst there's always a balance between having a statutory guidance that's inflexible, statutory regulation which is inflexible and, and, and guidance which is operated locally, and we currently are on the, on, on the, on the side of the latter, I think within that this is national guidance.

Police forces are will have will pay a great attention to that. And I think they'll pay even greater attention to the to the idea that as to, to quote my noble friend Lord Falconer, the police Minister is on the case with this. So I would I would say with respect, we can I think that's an appropriate level of of intervention. It's an important issue. The government is aware it's an important issue. We will always keep our eyes on this and make sure that we can have a level of level of scrutiny to ensure that police forces do, do behave respectfully towards hauliers, whilst at the same time maintaining their local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operational independence. Great. Thank you. Will the. Lesser the noble Lord mentioned make the point that it is make the point that it is unacceptable in principle for police forces to seek to make a police forces to seek to make a profit by the imposition of these fees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fees. I would need to go back and actually check on the, on, on, on, on the correspondence and for, for the noble Lord. Lord Pannick. But I would say, of course, this is about making sure that this is covering costs rather than rather than anything else.

16:29

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

I'm I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Addington, the noble Lord Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon in her absence, and the noble Lord Lord Pannick, as well as to my friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on this amendment. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, both his reply and for the engagement that we've had in in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As Lord Addington says, I mean this this really ought to be a a no brainer.

We do need to see consistency from police forces, and we haven't seen that. The noble Lord Lord Pannick rightly adds the point that it's very important that industry, in all the sectors that are affected here, see that this is where charges are being applied. It is merely to cover legitimate costs and not as a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it is. It has become, as I say, I'm very grateful to the policing Minister, who was written to a particular offender in West Midlands Police, and I'm conscious there was a change of leadership in that force.

And I'm grateful to the Liberal or the Minister for setting out the particular actions that West Midlands are taking following the exchange of correspondence. I'm grateful more particularly that the government will be writing to all police forces through the National Police Chiefs Council, because this isn't just an issue in the West Midlands, and the question of consistency relies on all forces behaving in the same predictable way, so that organisations affected can plan. The noble Lord says. The NPCC will review the guidance that was published last summer in May.

I think that it is reasonable for us to see how the correspondence that the policing Minister has had will continue to have actually translate into practice, but as he and the police forces will have heard, this is being watched by a growing number of noble Lords, a growing number of businesses and organisations who are concerned about it. And if we don't see the change in behaviour from police forces that we would like to see in this area, the growing band of noble Lords who are interested in this will seek further legislative opportunities and I hope, with the continued support of of the government, I'm conscious that my noble friend Lord Attlee in retirement is probably watching us live now on BBC Parliament and would have a view on the wisdom or otherwise of pressing this amendment.

But I do think he would be pleased by some of the things the noble Lord has said. So for now, with your Lordships agreement, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships. Pleasure that this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure that this amendment. Be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. After clause 160. Amendment 385. Baroness Neville-Rolfe Lord Jackson Baroness Neville-Rolfe Lord Jackson of Peterborough. My Lords, I rise to move the amendment to which I

16:32

AMDT 385

have attached my name, and amendment 385 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe.

16:32

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

But before I move on to that, I just want to very briefly indicate just want to very briefly indicate my support for the excellent amendment by in this group, by my amendment by in this group, by my noble friend Baroness Buscombe 387A which gives regulatory authorities which gives regulatory authorities greater powers to tackle illegal activity which is afflicting many activity which is afflicting many villages, towns and cities in our country and in particular is impacting the residential amenity and quality of life in both residential and commercial areas.

And I very much hope that the House is predisposed to support that amendment. My Lords, the amendment 385 seeks to get round the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the public by covering their faces when breaking the law. The amendment gives police officers the power to stop individuals while wearing a face covering. Following an intervention from the noble Lord Hogan-Howe in committee, my noble friend also provided that the constable may require the person to remove the face covering.

I think it's fair to say that many of us have been disappointed by the government's response so far to all the amendments on cycling, e-bikes and e-scooters, and to our efforts to use this bill to destroy the business model which makes mobile phone theft so profitable and attractive to criminals. And my Lords, I don't seek to relitigate the debate last week that we had on my mobile phone thefts, but I do hope that your Lordships House. Is able to understand the context into which my noble friend moves this amendment, or I move it in her name, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said from our front bench in committee, I ask any member of the committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes.

Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, means that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property. My Lords, our city streets now teem with men, usually men on fast cycles and electric bikes and scooters whose faces, even in summer, are hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile, even if it is not, especially if accompanied by loud music or shouts of get out of the way! Often the intentions of such concealment are malign.

At best, they are hurrying to make fast food deliveries and endangering people like myself, using the pavement for its proper purpose. Nor, I must stress, are we just talking about this being a London issue. Newspaper reports show, for example, that in Darlington there were hundreds of complaints last year about youths on bikes wearing balaclavas, riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians. Appalling especially for the elderly or infirm. My Lords, we need to put a stop to all of this.

We need a new power and we need it now. Rather than waiting while the problem grows, I should make it clear that I am not against cycling or the wearing of masks or scarves or helmets. This is not a prohibition. I merely want police to have the powers they need to take action where they suspect a crime is being committed. The powers of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, mentioned in winding up under the Public Order Act to remove face coverings in designated areas or for local authorities to make public space protection orders are inadequate.

They may be useful for hotspots such as Oxford Circus, which I strongly support. However they are. They ignore the fact that cycle crime is widespread and undermining faith in the police and indeed the government. Minister of state, the noble Lord Lord Hanson, later argued in our Report stage debate on the 4th of March that mobile phone theft was coming down a bit by 12% under this government, which I concede that is good news, but it is still an appalling level, making life miserable for tens of thousands of victims.

I myself made the point that there were 4985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London alone, using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and that a face covering was worn in over a thousand of those incidents. We have also heard that the Department of Transport are planning legislation on what they like to call micro mobility, but as the noble Lady Baroness Doocey suggested, such legislation could in practice take another two years. Actually, it could take longer to secure a legislative slot.

My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Neville made the point that the Food Safety Act, during which time she was a civil servant, was passed, had been waiting for a slot for nearly ten years until Edwina Currie created a crisis and it became a political priority. In short, we cannot wait. Moreover, this bill is the right vehicle for this amendment on face coverings as it concerns the enforcement of the criminal law by the police rather than controls on cyclists cycles and e-bikes per se.

Some countries Switzerland, France and Denmark are reported to have prescribed facial coverings in public spaces. My Lords, I'm not seeking to go that far. So. So to summarise, this amendment would allow a police officer, but not other enforcement officers, to be notified to stop a person who wore a face covering while cycling or riding on a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity and to require them to remove it. It would not ban such face coverings.

The penalty is a level three fine, up to £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month. My noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe tackled the matter gently in committee, hoping that the Minister would take the opportunity to bring forward a government amendment at Report stage. But in the absence of a more positive response, I would normally have been minded to test the opinion of the House. But in order and in the interests of expeditious transport action of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house business, I will not. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after. Clause 160. Insert the new. Clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. And I rise in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I rise in support of amendment tabled in my name 386. It concerns itself with police officers being able, after a lawful

16:39

Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)

- -

officers being able, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support this amendment and the work of the Police Federation of England Wales for for obvious reasons. First, it closes a clear operational gap in a world of keyless and electric vehicles. Removing the key no longer guarantees that that vehicle is disabled and officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, it is a modest and practical power. It does not create a sweeping new stop power.

It applies only to after a lawful stop has already taken place, and allows officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about safety of officers for passengers and for the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a vehicle can reduce risk of sudden flight injury, interference with evidence and of escalation at the roadside. And fourthly, it contains proper safeguards. The test of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the Pace codes.

This is a sensible and limited necessary amendment and I hope the House will support it. We are now in an era where many police officers and members of the public who are being harmed because people are able to drive away because a police officer does not have the right, in my opinion, to make that scene safe by asking someone to step out of the car. I've been through the reasons why this is proportional, useful, and is a gap that needs to be filled. So I commend this to the house here.

16:41

Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise. >> To speak in this group to amendment 387A in my name. Let me begin by explaining the reason and intent behind this simple amendment. On the 20th of January, 2026, further to an urgent question regarding business rates in the hospitality sector, I asked quotes. Are any of the many thousand Turkish barbers, vape shops and nail bars which are cash only and have infected our villages, towns and cities paying any business rates? And we know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs.

In his response, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore stated. Quotes I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness has said. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done. Quotes. In addition, the Labour MP Jo Powell stated recently quotes the crackdown on dodgy shops across the country is something the public cares deeply about.

Our high streets are being hollowed out by illegitimate businesses that often don't pay the tax they owe, sell illicit goods and have links to serious organised crime. That has real consequences for those that play by the rules and for communities fed up with seeing illegal activity in plain sight. Quotes. Just last week, in response to an oral question on the 5th of March in your Lordships' House regarding growth in cash only businesses, the Labour peer, the noble Lord Lord Watts, who I have given notice that I would be referencing him in this debate, stated that the businesses quotes are not there for the customers benefit, but in some cases for the business to avoid tax and other things.

Quotes. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, in response, stated that the government are aware and HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around this exact points. Close quotes. In short, my Lords, there is clearly a cross-party support for the intent behind this amendment. In addition, I have been informed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute very much support this amendment, stating that it would be extremely helpful for to the Trading Standards profession and other enforcement agencies if ever there was a case for sharing intelligence across Whitehall and HMRC.

Together with the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and Trading Standards, this is it. The noble Lord Lord Watts referred to quotes, other things, quotes. I gently suggest that it is time to stop being afraid to tell the truth and the whole truth about organised crime and the appalling gangs involved in money laundering, county lines, drugs and straightforward fraud. They are operating in almost every village, town and city in the UK. Here is a bill that you might think would address some of this, or at least attempt to, but no.

479 pages and nothing about the urgent need to address the myriad crimes committed each day by these people. In my own village of Goring on Thames, the occupants of these fake barber shops, fish and chip shops, taxi drivers, etc. come on the trains from other neighbourhoods and immerse themselves among us. We watch the drug dealing, the leering at us as each tier of our police and councillors turn a blind eye, afraid to intervene. They use young people, often from local schools, to do their dirty work in delivering drugs to locals.

Those locals, of course, we'd love to see driven from our neighbourhoods. We watch as the fabric of our shops deteriorate and turn ugly. We take the number plates of the bosses as they swing in from other neighbourhoods in their big cars, pretending to have their hair cut when actually they're collecting the proceeds of crime. Dusk is a good time of day to stand and observe, but much of the dealing, of course, takes place in quiet places, on quiet lanes and along the riverbanks.

It all creates a climate of real fear, as these people can be brutal. We send the number plates to the police, but nothing happens. Of course not. No doubt the plates are false. The gang bosses pay cash up front to the landlords who, if they don't give them a lease, often accuse them of racism. The Equalities Act with special characteristics card is so handy for these criminals. These people are laughing at us and see that when it comes to their crimes, we are effectively lawless.

They are also smart, difficult to pin down with evidence short of entering their shops without notice and searching the premises again and again. We used to have strict liability for landlords who could be a thousand miles away and still be criminally liable if someone was caught taking drugs on their property. But of course, that was until sweet v parsley 1970, when the House of Lords quashed the conviction against a landlord landlady, unaware that students who rented her property used it for cannabis.

Ruling that the knowledge of the illegal activity was essential for the offence, Operation Madness is a good start and to be commended, but the magnitude of this evil is so now so enormous, that only a multi-agency approach, armed with the necessary powers to act right across the UK, including our small towns and villages, will work before it's too late and we lose face faith in our police and the whole system. I wholeheartedly support our police, whose hands are tied by weak politicians, weak law and of course the College of Policing.

Meanwhile, our police stations continue to shut and our police are unable to cope with the casework, nor do they have the powers to act decisively when they detect upon reasonable grounds that something is wrong. If nothing happens soon to stop this and reverse the decline and impact on our streets, local people will take this into their own hands. What have they got to lose? As the late President Reagan once said, if fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of liberalism.

No different here, my Lords. My small amendment is not the panacea. But if accepted, would we believe, support the police and encourage the government to seek further measures both to deter and stem this menace? Nudges to our criminal justice system and regulations by themselves will not work. This demands a massive shift in our policing capability and our confidence to do the right thing. The amendment itself simply extends the opportunity for the police to investigate and, if necessary, suspend operations of a premises repeatedly, if necessary, to pin these criminals down.

The Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Police Act 2014 offers an opportunity to enable the police to close premises initially, at least on a temporary basis, where a property is thought on reasonable grounds to be associated with nuisance and or disorder. In its current form, the time limits are, however, too short so the criminal gangs can sit tight for a short closure period, reopen with a new name, or transfer their operations to another shop before the enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations.

Furthermore, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may not be long enough where the organised criminal networks are involved. Currently they sit. They can sit tight with their ill gotten gains, focus upon other parts of their network, or take over new premises such that their operation remains intact and can continue. In addition, the extension of timelines for the closure orders will mean much needed increased efficiencies of both court and police time. An extended timeline for the closure order would clearly act as a stronger deterrent and free up court time by hearing one closure application for a long term, rather than multiple shorter timelines and extensions.

My Lords, in 2014, the timelines to support the work of our police, together with the relevant government agencies, made sense. Not now. We are dealing with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a whole different artful and evil scenario. EA just first of all, just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA just first of all, just to talk about briefly about amendments three, eight, five that Lord Dixon three, eight, five that Lord Dixon introduced and three eight, six that Lord Bailey introduced in terms of 385 the mass on cycle. It terms of 385 the mass on cycle. It is a difficult area. We all know that cyclists wear masks for reasons just keeping the house warm reasons just keeping the house warm when it's cold, so it's a difficult area. Not everybody who covers their face is a criminal.

However,

16:50

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

it's clear that some groups of criminals are using wearing masks to avoid detection, and this is to avoid detection, and this is what this is intended to address. The point I raised at Committee stage was obviously, an officer already has power to stop any vehicle so they can stop any cycle without having to wear a mask or for any other reason. My only point for any other reason. My only point was, if you do intend to give this power, then it's not much point having the power.

If you don't have having the power. If you don't have the power to ask them to remove the mask. So I think there are difficulties with it, but that's that was where my support is in terms of Lord Paddick Lord Bailey amendment. It's a good point. Certainly as long as I've been a police officer, when you stop vehicles, you always have to take the key ignition key out to make sure you don't get run over or they don't run off. But now, if they don't have the key in the car, still goes.

Probably. As importantly, you're always wary of what they're sitting on, either a gun, a knife, or whatever else they might be sitting on. To get them out of the car can be helpful. I have to say, there's been some times when there've been so big I've kept them in the car. There are times when you use discretion. All that said, I think it's a good it's a good amendment to consider the changes in vehicle design. And I think it's worth the government thinking about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seriously. My Lord, I rise to express my real reservations about 385, which I'm afraid I cannot support. I'm very glad that my noble friend is not, in fact, thinking of taking the opinion of this House. I speak as a cyclist, this House. I speak as a cyclist, and I fear that what is proposed in 305 is likely to damage relations 305 is likely to damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists, rather for the reason

16:52

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

that the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe touched on. The truth is that we all bicycling, we wear a variety of things that are capable of disguising our identity. I did this disguising our identity. I did this morning. One always wears a helmet. Very frequently. One wears goggles Very frequently. One wears goggles or spectacles, either sunglasses or to keep the rain out. And when it's cold, one wears a ski mask or a scarf around the bottom of one's mouth. Now, all of these things are capable of concealing one's identity, and I saw several when I was bicycling in today from King's Cross people doing this, and it will damage the relations between the police and the innocent cyclists.

And we ask a question. I ask a question rhetorically what kind of person is the police officer likely to stop? Most probably, I suspect, from the ethnic minorities, or maybe young too. And anybody who's been in Parliament for long as I have knows the trouble that you have from stop and search that is proportionate, because the carrying of weapons is a serious risk, and I acknowledge that it's perfectly correct that cyclists, on occasion, do conceal themselves in order to seize bags and mobiles.

That is true. But the remedy is disproportionate. And furthermore, it's going to give rise to an interesting question of principle, because if it is right to impose this restriction in respect of cyclists, what about motorcyclists? Because they come into exactly the same category? They're perfectly capable of snatching a bag or a mobile, and most of them now have visors over their helmets. So what you're going to do about that? So my own view is, yes, there is a problem, but this is the disproportionate remedy.

It will impact on innocent cyclists, such as I venture to describe myself. And it will damage relationships between the police and the cycling community. And I was very glad to hear that my noble friend indicated that he wasn't going to test the opinion of a house, because had he done so, I would have voted against him.

16:54

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Knight Viscount Hailsham concerns about amendment 385. It concerns about amendment 385. It would confer a power on a constable to stop a person, a cyclist, to stop a person, a cyclist, without any basis, reasonable or otherwise, to suspect that they are committing an offence or they're about to commit an offence, and when they may have, as Viscount Hailsham said, a perfectly good reason to be wearing a face mask. They may have influenza, which they don't wish to share with others, or they may be concerned to avoid diesel or petrol fumes on the road on which they are travelling.

Moreover, the amendment would also confer an unrestricted power on the constable to require the person concerned to remove the face covering with the sanction of a fine or imprisonment, without any requirement on the constable, to consider whether the individual concerned has a proper reason for wearing a face mask and without any defence of reasonable excuse. I too could not support such an amendment. May I just say a word about Baroness Buscombe amendment number 387A she made, if I may say so, a very powerful case about the mischief which afflicts local communities.

My only concern is whether the amendment that she proposes is going to do much, if anything, to address this real mischief, because the remedy will still depend upon enforcement action by local authorities or by the police, and it will still depend upon evidence which is difficult to obtain. I would suggest that this is an area where the government needs to do all it can. I appreciate police forces are independent, but there really is a need to encourage police forces to take action to deal with these problems.

If it requires further resources, they should have further resources, but it really should be a priority for effective policing.

16:57

Viscount Goschen (Conservative)

- -

Like very briefly, to support my >> Like very briefly, to support my noble friend Lady Buscombe in the noble friend Lady Buscombe in the thrust of what she's seeking to achieve with her. Amendment 387 A and my Lords, I don't think I heard from my noble friend that she felt this was the panacea, the answer to this very complex situation, which very clearly needs multi-agency response. But there seems to be a very widespread agreement, understanding that there has been very recently a very substantial proliferation of essentially cash only businesses on our high streets for nefarious purposes.

Of course, many of the companies, many of the businesses may well be totally legitimate and carrying on the business that they have done for many years. But in just a one anecdote, in a town not very far away from where I live in the West Country, I counted recently. Now there are ten barbers or nail bars within a relatively short street. Well, Lords, there is not enough hair or enough nails within that, within that area where only a couple of years ago, I think approximately two would have sufficed.

So either there has been a massive demand by the locals for for these services, or perhaps there are other motives. It seems clear that the police know what's going on, that trading standards knows what's going on, what's going on that the government needs, knows what's going on. So, my Lords, I think it really is incumbent on the Minister when he comes to respond to this debate, to firstly to acknowledge the scale of of what's going on here and secondly, to give the House an indication of of how a truly multi-agency and tough and robust approach will be taken to this issue, really to nip it in the bud where the public does see widespread law breaking and widespread acceptance that that is what's going on, there needs to be action for the law to be continued, to be respected.

So, my Lords, without getting into really the detailed effects in my remarks of my Noble Friends amendment, I think she's done a great service to the House to highlighting what is a significant and serious issue, as indeed has has my noble friend Lord Jackson, in terms of mast cycle thieves and people who are intimidating on high powered, sometimes illegal e-bikes without really much fear of of being caught. And that is really at the very centre of the mobile phone theft industry.

It is an industry, but equally, I quite accept some of the more cautionary remarks that have been made by others about the difficulties involved here. So I was reassured by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe his description of the, the, the powers that the police have. But I was also felt that my noble friend had again put his finger on a very serious issue. And it's for the government really to come to the House and say, how do you defeat this? How do you address this? How do you encourage the police to deal with thieves who are masked, who are intimidating, and who are riding vehicles that are obviously unregistered, yet they have the performance of of a moped or similar.

So, my Lords, I think it's been a very interesting debate and I very much look forward to the Minister's response. I have some sympathy.

17:01

Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)

- -

With the noble Lord Jackson. >> With the noble Lord Jackson. Especially in terms of people who are stealing mobile phones. But are stealing mobile phones. But when I read the clause two that it was about people who were covering was about people who were covering their face to stop identity, I thought the problem about that is the same as my noble friend Lord Pannick mentioned. I used to cycle a great deal and I always wore a scarf, really partly because of fumes, as he said, but also because I seem to be ingesting a vast number of insects.

And I really found this rather objectionable. But I'd had lunch or not. So for that reason, I'm rather worried about this amendment.

17:02

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Very good point. >> Sir. >> As to amendment 385, the face covering amendment, which I note that motorcyclists strangely aren't covered. Those scooter riders are. covered. Those scooter riders are. I'm not sure I see the need for a new general standard, standalone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering. The fact is that the police already have, as I think Lord Hogan-Howe referred to a discretionary power under the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 163, to require any motorist or anybody who's propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle.

And a mechanical vehicle would, of course, include both motor scooters and motorcycles. And that power is very wide. My Lords, it's generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks, and that's perceived as part of the compact between governments and road users. You use the roads as a road user. The corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic, so an extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.

Lord Jackson's drawn attention, and rightly so, to a very specific case about mobile phone thefts, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth. But the amendment of Lord Jackson does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. And it seems to me that that was the point that was alluded to by the noble Lord Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence.

As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Lord Viscount Hailsham referred to the need to keep warm. Others have referred to the need to avoid fumes in terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity. There's the safety aspect. The noble Lord Lord Pannick considered the avoidance of germs, and Lord Lord Berkeley of Knighton had additional and inventive reasons for wearing for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects.

However, the the serious point is that there can be a dangers and there can be fare caused by people nefariously covering their faces, and if there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking aspect, for taking action on that. But without that, this amendment is is hopeless. I mean, for my part, I'm not happy when delivery drivers call at people's homes completely covered up because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not.

But at least a homeowner can refuse ingress. But I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that. As far as amendment 386 is concerned, the amendment moved by the noble Lord Lord Bailey of Paddington. It may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless cars or driverless cars.

I should have thought, along with Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under section 163 ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime, I take Lord Hogan-Howe points that point that sometimes it's sensible not to get them to get out of their cars if they look particularly big or threatening. But nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment.

But I would have thought the reason is that goes wider than just driverless or keyless cars. As to Baroness Buscombe amendment, at 3.87 a, I suspect the whole house has a great deal of sympathy with her speech in respect of organised criminal networks, of driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns. She even covered the quiet lanes in our villages. But her amendment and I share the view of the noble Lord Lord Pannick on this is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate business or non-taxpaying business from our streets.

The amendment is is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. And for my part, before that amendment would be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that that would have some impact on these offences. And I'd also like to hear the government view of the moment. There's very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.

17:08

Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)

- -

For the noble Lord sits down and also in addressing the noble and learned Lord Hall panic, I am concerned that noble Lords feel what's the point? And I think that's one of the reasons we are where we are, which is a terrible place in this country. What I'm suggesting is a small amendment, which would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys to start making life more difficult for them to actually extend these closure orders, so that we're also being a little more efficient about the use of police time and the use of our courts.

We're hearing that we're going to lose our juries because of the lack of court time. This is an example where if we have longer periods of closure, allowing our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than the just the one or the few so far,

17:08

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

big attacks on them that has done big attacks on them that has done so far, we need to surely find as many opportunities as possible many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on, because what message will this send to the public if we don't bother to do some of the easy bits to get this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going? I'll just say at this point that was quite a long intervention,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly for a short stage. My Lords, I'll answer it very briefly, and perhaps on behalf of briefly, and perhaps on behalf of the noble Lord Lord Pannick as well, because I suspect what we're saying is roughly the same. I'm entirely is roughly the same. I'm entirely with the noble Lady on the question of juries. I'm entirely with the noble Lady on the question of noble Lady on the question of needing to do something to reduce the kind of crime, particularly by the kind of crime, particularly by organised criminal gangs in our villages and towns and streets.

And I agree with Lord Pannick about the need for more resources for policing. But the problem with her amendment is that there is no evidence that I can see, or that has been shown to us as extending these periods would do anything significant to reduce crime. Yes.

17:10

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, can I thank my noble friends, lady Neville-rolfe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Bailey, Lord Addington and Lady Bailey, Lord Addington and Lady Buscombe for their amendments in relation to amendment 385. In the name of Lady Neville, my noble friend, Lady Neville-rolfe, and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jackson. Today that amendment, as we've heard, grants police powers to stop a person riding a bike and wearing a face covering and then require them to remove that. My Lords, the context of this is the epidemic of phone theft.

The United Kingdom now accounts for almost 40% of Europe's phone thefts, despite being only 10% of the market. In London itself, there is one mobile phone theft every 7.5 minutes, and it is to that to that issue that my noble friend Lord Jackson is directing his amendment and he has pinpointed what I think we all accept is a very serious issue. That is the actions of intimidating masked cyclists stealing mobile phones. And he set out ably the rationale for his amendment, although when doing so he did indicate that he did not intend to test the opinion of the House.

Can I turn then to amendment 387A from my noble friend Lady Buscombe amending, seeking to amend powers relating to closure notices and closure orders, as I think other noble Lords have recognised, the character of our high streets has changed dramatically over the past decade, alongside the pressures of online retail and the economic challenges facing traditional business, we have seen the proliferation of premises that appear at best dubious and at worst directly connected to organised criminal activity. The scale of the problem should concern us all.

We all know the types of shops at issue here. They appear almost overnight in our cities and towns. Prime retail locations, often with few customers, but somehow able to sustain some of the highest rents in the country. Investigations by local authorities have uncovered counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco, unregulated vapes and sometimes sweets containing additives banned under UK food standards. The amendment, in the name of my Noble friend, proposes to alter the powers contained in the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by extending the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and the maximum period for closure orders from three months to 12 months.

As my noble friend Lady Buscombe has said so powerfully this afternoon, there are many institutions in support of this, notably the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, who have been calling out for greater powers to tackle rogue retailers. The present legal framework provides tools to deal with such premises, but the time limits in practice, the existing time limits are often insufficient. A closure notice lasting only 48 hours may simply delay the problem rather than solve it. Criminals can wait out short closure periods, reopen under an altered business name, transfer activities elsewhere before enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations.

Similarly, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may be inadequate where organised criminal networks are involved. By the time the order expires, the underlying criminal structure remains intact, ready to resume operations. I fully recognise that the current periods were set out by the previous conservative government in 2014, but I think the passage of time of 12 years since then has demonstrated that more needs to be done to restore our high streets and our communities, and to end the scourge of criminality, uplighting them both.

And surely the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, is a step in the right direction, and if she wishes to divide the house, she will have our full support. Amendment 386 from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, as we've heard, addresses a practical and important issue that has arisen from the evolution of modern vehicle technology and the difficulties faced by police officers on the front line. As he said, modern vehicles can remain powered even when drivers exit in the absence of a physical key, means that officers cannot rely on the traditional safeguards that once existed.

My Lords, my Noble Friends Amendment would provide officers with a clear statutory basis to direct drivers to exit the vehicle and remain outside whilst the stop is dealt with, and also allows for the Secretary of State to issue guidance or codes of practice to ensure that power is exercised consistently and appropriately. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lords Minister gives that amendment and all the amendments in this group careful consideration, and I look forward to his response.

17:15

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful. >> To noble Lords for tabling the three sets of amendments, and I'll speak to each in turn, if I may. speak to each in turn, if I may. First of all, can I just start with the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the amendment 385 Peterborough and the amendment 385 on behalf of Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe, I think I just want to start by reminding noble Lords about the government's winter of action, which actually took place between the end of beginning of December and the end of January over the Christmas period.

And that also complemented a summer campaign, which focussed particularly on the issues that the noble Lord has mentioned, which is anti-social behaviour and mobile phone theft. And as the noble Lord himself mentioned in his introductory comments in London, the actions that we've taken over that 12 month period have reduced a 12% fall in mobile phone theft. Now, that's not still not good enough. It needs to fall further. It's a horrendous crime. It's damaging to tourism, it's damaging to the individual.

But there has been a fall in the first year of the government due to the hotspot action that we've taken, and the winter and summer action campaigns took place in 650 town centres across the country, supported by additional resources from local police forces to deal with this issue. And we know we will see more analysts data in coming months as to the impact of that action. Now, the point I want to make really echoes some of the points that have been made by the noble Lord Hogan-Howe and the noble Lord Marks of Henley.

The government does have a road safety strategy published on the 7th of January, which sets out commitments to increase robust enforcement of road traffic law to protect road users. That's under the auspices of the Department of Transport, and it does indicate an important role for the police to play in taking action against the type of behaviour that the noble Lord is concerned about. As I stated in committee, the police have a suite of powers existing under legislation to tackle street crime facilitated by bicycles and scooters, and indeed, as a noble Lord Hogan-Howe and the noble Lord Marks of Henley, and indeed the noble and learned Lord Lord Pannick and Viscount Hailsham have mentioned to address currently the use of face coverings intended to conceal identity, and I encourage the police to make full use of all those powers, especially in the crime hotspots that we've identified.

For example, section 68 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 permits police to require individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas so the police could designate a particular high street or a particular area where they believe crime is likely to take place. And in that area, the police have the powers under that legislation to remove face coverings. Now there's a range of reasons again, which I'm not going to pray today, but which are made in a very strong way by the noble Lord Berkeley, Viscount Hailsham, and the noble and learned Lord Pannick around weather, around ill health, around fumes, and around the added protein of insects going into the mouth of the noble Lord Berkeley of Knighton.

And they're all valid reasons. They're not ones I'm praying in a strongly today because the legislation is there, including section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which the noble Lord Marks of Henley himself referred to, which does provide for anybody driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle to stop if directed to do so by a constable. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 permits police to seize motor vehicles, which are being used in an anti-social behaviour manner, and furthermore, section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits police to seize motor vehicles and that includes, in this case, e-scooters being driven without appropriate licence or insurance.

And I do encourage the police to use those powers. There are also public space protection orders, which can be used, and therefore I think there are reasonable powers on the statute book that can be used to meet the objectives of the noble Lords, particular amendment today. Now, the amendment 36 by the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington. I have a lot of sympathy with this, and I said that in committee, and it has been supported by the Police Federation. I want to see police officers do their vital job.

We've recently published the road safety strategy. As I've mentioned, the consultation on that road safety strategy includes also proposed changes for penalties for motoring offences. There is a consultation and it does contain specific proposals on the existing offence of failure to stop and report following a collision, and also seeks views on related measures around compliance. When drivers are stopped by police. Again, the point the noble Lord Hogan-Howe mentioned the Department of Transport have a consultation, are considering the results of that consultation and aim to respond to the consultation when it closes on the 11th of May.

And I would encourage noble Lords to put again and refer this debate to that consultation, because I do have great sympathy for the amendment. I want to ensure the police officers do have the necessary tools to enforce our road traffic laws and to make our roads safe. But I would just say to the noble Lord, maybe we could wait for the consultation that we've got, and there are potentially areas where we can take that forward at some point when legislative time allows.

Following the consultation to date. Now, let me turn next to amendment 387A in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Buscombe. And let me say straight away she raises an important point. Not all of the businesses that she's mentioned are criminal outlets, but there are a number of businesses that potentially are involved in criminality. The new High Streets Task Force that we have in place at the moment is looking at whether the current data sharing between agencies, supporting enforcement teams is appropriate, as we want to maximise our response.

The government are also publishing very shortly a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy in the summer, which will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including through better sharing and exploitation of financial information. And the Home Office has a cross-government High Street Illegality Taskforce now, which is developing strategic long term policy to respond to money laundering to look at associated illegality in UK high streets, including forms of economic crime which is mentioned, including tax evasion, including illegal working and including systematic vulnerabilities the criminals exploit, and including issues to do with HMRC and trading standards.

Indeed, I had the great honour of attending a raid myself in in Merseyside in Birkenhead in the summer of last year, where cross agreement from HMRC National Crime Agency, Merseyside Police and the Trading Standards did a raid on a premise that was. I still use the word alleged because I'm not sure if the matters come to court yet, but which allegedly was defrauding HMRC was selling illegal goods and was purporting to be a legitimate business when it wasn't.

That is perfectly reasonable. There is action being taken at the moment. So I would say to the noble Baroness, and this again, the noble Viscount Goschen supported a similar level of action. The government's trying to design a number of actions on that to drive out illegal businesses in a range of ways, because, as the noble Lady has said, they undercut legitimate businesses, they reduce the taxation that the government receives. They employ people who are working illegally, and that is not good and not acceptable.

And we need to take action. Now, the question, I would say is whether the noble Lady's amendment to increase the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days and closure orders from six months to 12 months would assist in that process. In clause three of the bill, we are, as she knows, increasing the duration of stenosis from 48 hours to 72 hours. That gives the police and others time to investigate initially. And I just say to her that if if her proposal was taken, does she think that a 12 month or six month further empty premise on the high street or in a village is good for the high street as a whole? I'm not sure it is.

We do need to drive out that illegality. I accept that there's illegality going on, but I hope I've pointed out to date the challenges that we've got. The increase to 72 hours will help address operational challenges and gives agencies under our proposals in the bill more time to progress. An application for a closure order protects any victims and the community in the interim, while a closure order is sought and the closure power itself, as the noble Lady will accept, is a very powerful tool and routinely used in a housing context to protect those that are most vulnerable.

I would argue that the extension to 72 hours in our clause three of the bill is sufficient to provide respite to victims and community from anti-social behaviour. Closure orders are intended to provide, at the moment, short term relief, which is why we're only increasing the duration by a further 24 hours. And I would say to the noble Lady that whilst a closure order cannot prohibit access in respect to anyone who habitually lives on the premises, a closure or a closure notice, a closure order can.

Closure orders are intended as temporary targeted measures and not long term sanctions. But I do accept for her that there is a real issue that needs to be addressed and I hope with the measures I've outlined from what the government are doing now on a cross-government basis, HMRC Home Office, police, National Crime Agency, trading standards locally, we're trying to root out where that illegality takes place and further action will be taken in due course. So I hope with those reassurances that despite the support of the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, I hope with those reassurances that I could ask the noble Lady not to push her amendment.

And I'm grateful to the noble Lord Jackson for his indication that he's not going to push his. And I hope that the assurances are given, and the favourable view I have of the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington's amendment is one that will allow us to complete a proper consultation on that point, and that he would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not push his either. My Lord. So I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate, and particularly the support of my particularly the support of my noble friend Viscount Goschen and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his interesting intervention into the debate. If I could just reassure my noble friend Viscount Hailsham. noble friend Viscount Hailsham. These are permissive powers, discretionary powers, and they're not blanket ban powers, and they are targeted at a particular subset of criminals.

And there is clearly a quantum difference between people who are dressed to cycle on the public highway that are passing through a locale, and those that are flooding the zone in e-bikes dressed in black with helmets and face coverings with a rucksack, who may be wishing to rob a shop or assault someone by snatching their mobile telephone. So, with all due respect to to my noble friend, I think he's misplaced in his concerns, but I fully respect the arguments he's made on that basis and I thank in passing.

I do thank the noble Lord, the Minister. We have had a lot of debate on this issue, and I am reassured partially by the measures that the government have brought forward and currently in train. I hope that we can return to this issue, not least the breaking of the mobile phone theft model that that organised crime is engaged in. But in the meantime, as I indicated, I beg leave of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave. Withdraw. Amendment 386 Lord Bailey. Amendment 386 Lord Bailey. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For his answer. I am partially. Sated by what you said around the Sated by what you said around the the the the consultation is coming along, but we all know that consultations can take forever. We may not get the outcome that I'm seeking, and I want to make the point that we've already had officers both in London and Essex injured by people deciding to drive away. In most other jurisdictions across the Western world, this law has been put into place because they've already had deaths, and I think it's just a matter of time before an officer is seriously hurt if we don't address this issue.

But as, as I said, the the the noble Lords Minister was very generous in his answer. And you have given a way forward and I accept that way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. So I, I seek to withdraw my amendment. Member three sits not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member three sits not moved. Amendment 387 is withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 387 is withdrawn. Amendment 387A Baroness Buscombe. I will be brief. I hear what the Minister has said. I support Minister has said. I support everything the government is trying to do to attack the scourge on our society and all our villages and towns. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord marks, and I'm sorry to say the noble and learned Lord Pannick seem rather defeatist. If this isn't the panacea which it is not, it is a nudge to keep us finding different ways to show these people, to intimidate these people, to say to these people, stop doing this, and destroying our villages, towns and cities.

I thank my noble friend the Viscount Goschen for his support and my noble friend on the front bench that I wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the question will be decided by division. I'll advise. Sorry. I by division. I'll advise. Sorry. I beg your pardon. The question is could have the question first. The question is that amendment 387 A be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content consent the will say content consent the contrary. Not content, not content. The question will now be decided by a division. Advise the House when voting is open.

17:30

Division

17:54

Amdt. 387C Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)

>> Yes, in the absence of Lord Banner, I wish to move this amendment, which I support, though amendment, which I support, though I have to say that my defence of it will be less than perfect, given that I've only just seen the that I've only just seen the amendment, however. Here goes. I must first of all start by thanking the Minister for having organised a meeting very kindly between himself and his officials and indeed officials at the Home Office in order to discuss, discuss this, this, this, this bill that was extremely, extremely useful and important.

My Lords, I support this bill and I'm trying to find very quickly the. The reason why I quickly the. The reason why I support these amendments. I note simply what these amendments do is to enable the courts to award compensation towards public interest companies. Instead of just simply to victims. The current the current mechanism, my Lords, is that in the case of sanctions, in particular, the monies that are recovered from sanctions can often be very substantial.

Go straight to the government. And admittedly, it is important that the government has the resources in order to enforce and strengthen enforcement mechanisms. It seems to me to be somewhat unfair that the victims don't get a look in in terms of compensation. Compensation when after all the sanctions have been devised in order to protect the victims and indeed to, to, to to reward them. And although we recognise that compensation is not always in terms of actual money, but it's important that, you know, there is official acknowledgement of the wrongs that have been done to them, the fact that the courts cannot allow enable the the money derived to go to public interest compensation is, is is an anomaly, which I think needs to be corrected by Lords.

One of the reasons that the noble Lord, the Minister, gave in his, as I mentioned, his very kind meeting, was that the the the it would be very difficult to determine who was a victim and indeed what sort of compensation was, was, was necessary, or indeed just simply because the victims are of, of, of, of aggression, particularly in the context of conflict, is huge and wide and very difficult to determine. And the government is concerned that the right money, as it were, goes to the right victims.

And that is, of course, acknowledged. That is that is a very, very important point. But the. Redress Trust, which has actually drafted a lot of the amendments to this particular aspect of the Crime and Policing Bill, has pointed out that there already exist relevant organisations which can receive trust funds for for victims, including, as I say, the Trust Fund for victims, which was created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Secondly, there's the register of damage caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by resolution or any successor body or attached fund, and there is also the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly through its resolution of 16th December 1981. What the bill also, what the amendment also does is to point out the relative ease which Ministers would have, which the government would have in keeping a register of those organisations that receive compensation funds and indeed monitoring them.

So I think, my Lords, that in essence, what I really wish to say that it seems to me just and fair that the victims of aggression, particularly in the area of conflict and those who are eventually agreed to receive compensation, don't receive that money, goes to the government, to the Treasury, and also to other sources within government in order, as I've said, to enforce to to to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms which I entirely agree with.

But I'm not sure that all the money should go there. I think some of it should be set aside for the victims. And again, as I stress the reason being that sanctions are set up in order to. Retrieve funds which are meant for the victims. The fact is, they don't always get this money. So, my Lords, I beg to move. Post after clause 161, insert the new clause as printed on the martial list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to support Baroness D'Souza and to support my noble

18:00

D'Souza and to support my noble friend Lord Banner. I would like to ask the Minister to thank the Minister and his officials for all Minister and his officials for all they have done on this clause, and to see if the Minister might look at this again before or at some at this again before or at some other point, to see whether it is possible to do what we've requested. But I'm just very grateful for all But I'm just very grateful for all of the meetings and all the help we've had from everybody.

So let's hope that we could do something. Thank you.

18:01

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise to express our support in principle for amendments 387 and principle for amendments 387 and 387D moved by the noble Baroness D'Souza on behalf of Lord Banner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments. Address a moral and legal imperative, ensuring that assets imperative, ensuring that assets confiscated from those who violate our laws, particularly our sanctions regime, are used to sanctions regime, are used to provide redress to the victims of those very same violations. While my own Committee stage amendment focussed on a ministerial power to create a fund via regulations, create a fund via regulations, amendments three, eight, seven C and 387D, place this power where I believe it now properly belongs with the judiciary by amending the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2022.

These amendments grant the Crown Court the discretion to award compensation for public interest or social purposes, and this ensures that when a court deprives a defendant of the benefits of their crime, it can simultaneously direct those funds towards the restoration of the communities or individuals harmed. As the organisation redress has highlighted with great clarity, the UK is currently an outlier. Both the United States and the European Union have already established mechanisms to repurpose seized assets.

In 2023, the US successfully transferred over $4 million seized from a Russian oligarch to support war veterans in Ukraine. Here in the UK, we have frozen assets on an unprecedented scale following the invasion of Ukraine. Yet we operate in a regulatory lacuna where we can freeze and eventually confiscate. But we cannot effect effectively compensate without these amendments. We're effectively telling the victims of state sponsored aggression and human rights abuses that while we will punish the perpetrator, we will do nothing for the survivor.

My Lords, this is not about the convenience of the state. It's about the clarity of justice. We must move away from a system that treats the proceeds of sanctions violations as a windfall for the Treasury, and instead treat them as a resource for reparations. And I urge the Minister to recognise that there is cross-party unanimity on this issue. Sympathy Dispatch Box at Committee stage was a start, but sympathy does not stop crime, and it certainly does not provide reparations.

18:03

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, can I first of all, thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, for tabling these amendments, which, as we've heard, raise questions about how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. And can I also thank the noble Baroness, lady D'Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to to these amendments in his absence, my noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear.

It is to ensure that where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards the wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused at Committee stage. I spoke sympathetically towards these, towards these amendments and I don't seek to repeat the points I made at that point. But other noble Lords at Committee stage explored how these proposals would interact with the existing confiscation and forfeiture regimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

These are complex frameworks to which any changes must be carefully considered, but the amendments raised a very important point on ensuring that justice is not only punitive but also restorative. And I look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord. The Minister's response.

18:05

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful, especially today, to the noble Baroness D'Souza for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord Banner and for my noble friend Lady Gowdy, for speaking in support of her today, both of the noble Baroness. No. I arranged a meeting for the noble Lord Banner to discuss these matters with redress, at which they both attended, and indeed other peers did also, including the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool, to discuss these matters. And I did set out then, as I did the Committee stage, the rationale for the government's position in relation to the amendments.

Can I just say to my noble friend Baroness Goudie, that when I do say today the government's position again, which is not to accept the amendments, I will always say that we keep these matters under review and we will continue to do so. But I think that the issue of compensation of victims is extremely serious. It's one that we do take seriously. But I laid out last time a committee the various mechanisms the UK has for victim compensation. I won't repeat those now for the purposes of time, but I know that the noble Lord Banner particularly raised the issue in this amendment in the context of the Russian war with Ukraine.

I appreciate also the noble Lord Clement-Jones continued support for the approach that has been tabled today. But if I may, I just want to speak to this amendment in the context of where I think the noble Lord Banner was coming from. And again, I just want to acknowledge the support for the amendment from the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Noble Lord Banner has spoken to me on many occasions about the need for wider community compensation, rather than just individuals, in the context of the war in Ukraine, and I would like to affirm this government's support for Ukraine.

Indeed, the Ukraine UK is already one of Ukraine's largest supporters and donors, providing significant financial aid alongside working with international partners to support Ukraine as much as possible. The UK has already given 21.8 billion committed, of which 13 billion is in military support, 5.3 billion in non-military support, 3.5 billion in UK f cover and an ongoing commitment to provide 3 billion annually for as long as it takes or until 2030, 31. And we're also supporting with the G7 loans backing profits belonging from Russian sovereign assets in the EU and the interest on those assets to put to Ukrainian interests.

So there are a number of issues where we are fully supportive and using resources to meet the objectives that noble Lord Banner particularly wishes to have. But I say to him and to those who have spoken in favour today, that given the limited number of cases to which these amendments would apply, they would only create minimal impact on the people of Ukraine. And I suggest that it is better for us to focus our efforts in the initial stages on the larger international mechanisms for compensation, in line with our international partners, which provide far greater funds.

And I've pointed particularly to not just the UK's direct taxation commitment, but also, as I've said, the G7's 50 billion era loan backed by interest generated from Russian sovereign assets in the UK, in the EU and in the UK. So I understand the noble Ladies support for the issue. I understand particularly the noble Lord Banner's concern for this matter and his desire to help and support our friends in Ukraine, and I completely share that desire. However, following the rationale that I've laid out, I suggest that it would be best done through the current mechanisms of government, not through these amendments.

I will keep all matters under review, but I do feel that the amendments today would distract the UK and indeed our partners, from the core principle of supporting Ukraine, particularly in this great time of need. And I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw the amendment.

18:09

Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I thank the Minister, as always, for his his response and as always, for his his response and indeed for the support that the government is providing, particularly in Ukraine and after the Russian aggression. I still feel, however, that the definitions within the bill are of victim and loss are still too narrow and indirect. Victims are clearly not eligible. But we all know that there are many, many, many victims, tragic victims of indirect victims of war crimes.

My Lords, I think it's very likely that there will be more sanctions to come in the future, and there will be therefore further need for victim compensation. And there are 2500, I think, sanctions directed against Russia, Russia targeted sanctions, and still the government retains most of the proceeds of these. I nevertheless hear what the Minister has said about keeping this under review. And in view of the fact that I don't think that this these amendments have been properly addressed by me, though, of course, by the member opposite and indeed by the the opposition frontbench, I beg leave to withdraw these amendments, the amendment be withdrawn.

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 387 not moved. And now we return to the main Marshalled List. Amendment 388, which has already been debated. Move. Formally, the question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 164, amendment 388 a Lord Hanson of Flint no. Lord Katz.

18:11

Amdt. g388A Lord Katz (Labour)

My Lords, I am pleased to move the government amendments in this group which will establish the powers needed to introduce a clear powers needed to introduce a clear and robust regime for managing those who have committed appalling child cruelty offences. Before turning to the detail, I want to pay particular tribute to the extraordinary dedication of campaigners including Tony and Paula Hudgell. Their tireless advocacy, grounded in personal tragedy and driven by a determination to protect other children from harm, has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate and legislative action.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davis and Helen Grant, MP, for their constructive engagement in helping us to deliver this important step forward. As we continue scrutiny of this bill. We do so at a pivotal moment for the management of dangerous offenders. The police system underpinning the Sex offenders register is transitioning from the legacy Virus Database to the new multi-agency Public Protection System maps, which will deliver modern integrated risk management capabilities. At the same time, as part of the government's commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, we are examining how best to strengthen community based offender management across the system.

In that context, and in recognition of the complexity of this area, we have taken the decision to provide for the framework of a new scheme on the face of the Bill, while setting out the operationally operational detail in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The government's amendments therefore, create the power to establish a set of familiar tools for police to apply in managing such offenders. Notification requirements clear rules about what must be notified when and how, and the powers necessary for the police and partner agencies to assess and respond to risk consistently and proportionately.

My Lords, important safeguards and parameters are built into the structure of these powers to ensure the scheme adhere strictly to the framework approved by Parliament. The qualifying offences and thresholds in the new schedule introduced by amendment 395A, ensured that the regime is squarely focussed on serious harm to children arising from their own caregivers, including offences such as child cruelty causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm, and female genital mutilation. This is a coherent and tightly drawn list which will close the safeguarding gap identified by campaigners.

The regime provides for maximum penalties which are consistent with those faced by registered sex offenders and proportionate to the gravity of deliberating. Evading such monitoring. It also ensures that any entry or search must be authorised by a justice of the peace, and used solely for the purposes of risk assessment. Regulations establishing the scheme will be developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs Council, and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. We believe this approach strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and the operational flexibility required to respond swiftly to the evolving landscape and potential changes to patterns, patterns of offending or evasion.

For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in place of noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, not to move his amendment 389 and to join the House in supporting the government's approach. My Lords, I beg to move.

18:14

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Let me propose. After clause 164, insert the new clause as printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the new clause as printed. The government amendment, starting with three, 38A, are welcomed from these benches in the welcomed from these benches in the scope and the depth, ensuring that offenders who have committed this heinous crime of child cruelty will now be required to notify, and that they will also be monitored carefully to ensure that their access to children in the future will be supervised to protect children from such offenders. As we debated at committee, these offences need to be brought into the safe scope of high level offender management.

And I also want to echo Lord Katz comments about Tony Hudgell and his family. They are doughty campaigners and they really have shone a spotlight on an area that most of society has ignored over the years. I've read amendment 389 with interest and just would like to ask perhaps both Lord Cameron but also the Minister. If clause six identifying relevant offences would be covered in the offences would be covered in the government. Amendment 388C.

18:16

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

This is this is an important >> This is this is an important group of amendments concerning the creation of a child cruelty register. And I'm very grateful to register. And I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of this proposal. Over the course of the Bill's passage through your Lordships House. And in the other place, I would remind all noble Lords that the reforms before us today, as we've heard indeed, are the result of determined campaigning over a long period of time.

In particular, can I place on record the sincere thanks of the opposition benches to Helen Grant MP and to her constituent, Paula Hudgell, whose tireless advocacy has brought this issue to national attention? I am incredibly pleased that Parliament has responded to this campaign, and I welcome very much the government's decision to accept our proposals and bring forward their own amendments to establish a notification regime for child cruelty offenders. And can I also put on record my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his engagement on this matter? Of course, as noble Lords will appreciate, there remain differences of view about the precise scope of the register and the offences that should fall within it.

From these benches we have consistently argued that the Register should cover a broader range of offences in order to ensure that the system captures a full spectrum of conduct that poses a continuing risk to children. While the government's proposals perhaps do not go as far as we might have wished in that regard, they nevertheless represent real progress and a clear acknowledgement that the existing gap in the law must be closed. So we welcome the government's willingness to move in this direction, and we hope that as the policy is implemented, there will remain scope to review and strengthen the regime where necessary.

I have one question for the noble Lord Minister, because it is vital that the Register is established as soon as possible. Can he give from the Dispatch Box an indication of possible timelines as to when that might happen? My Lords, once again can I thank Paula Hudgell and Helen Grant MP, who have performed a tremendous service in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament and the wider public, and I hope all noble Lords from across your Lordships' House will join me in recognising their efforts today.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I won't be moving amendment 389 in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

18:18

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

The. >> The. >> My Lords, I'm grateful for the consensual approach taken by both the Liberal Democrat and the the Liberal Democrat and the opposition frontbench. I will answer the questions in in the order I was I was given them on the the noble Baroness. Lady Brinton asked about the offences listed in clause six of the of the opposition, amendment 389. I would point out to her that the offences that are covered are listed at Amendment Government Amendment 395A, and they largely overlap with those in the opposition amendment.

In terms of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we will set up the register as soon as practicable when the new Maps system is up and running. I can't commit to a more solid timeline than that, but I would. I would hope you would take the the the way the government has responded to this, to the campaign, the amendments, as, as a, should I say, a promissory note, that we are taking this matter very seriously and will act as soon as, as soon as practically with the speed as practical as we can possibly master.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with that, my Lords, I beg to move. And is that amendment 388 A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And is that amendment 388 A be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. content. The contents have it. Amendments 388 B, C and D move Amendments 388 B, C and D move formally en bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content content, content content the contents have it. Amendment 389. Lord Cameron not moved, not moved. Amendment 390 has already been debated.

And then we move to amendment 390 A, which is on the supplementary sheet Baroness Sater 390 A.

18:20

Baroness Sater (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to the >> My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment 390, which 390 a which would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within 12 months of this act coming within 12 months of this act coming into force. A report reviewing criminal records disclosure regime. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for supporting this amendment, who unfortunately cannot be here today. The purpose of this amendment is straightforward to ensure that a thorough review of the Criminal records disclosure regime is undertaken within 12 months.

We know that having a criminal record can have profound consequences for individual's ability to rehabilitate and move forward with their lives. It is therefore important that we understand whether the current regime is operating proportionately, and whether changes might be required to ensure that it strikes the right balance between public protection and rehabilitation. Many noble Lords have in the past raised many concerns about aspects of criminal records disclosure regime, and I believe this is a timely moment to bring this amendment forward so that we can look at this in the round.

Your Lordships will know that I have previously spoken in this House and put forward amendments where I have highlighted the postcode lottery that can arise when an offence is committed before the age of 18, but the individual is not brought before a court until after their 18th birthday. In these circumstances, for example, a young person who might otherwise have received a youth disposal, such as a referral order, may instead be sentenced as an adult simply because their case reaches court after they have turned 18.

That difference can have significant long term consequences, including for what later appears on a Disclosure and Barring Service check and therefore for access to employment, education and training, and indeed their rehabilitation prospects. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister Baroness Levitt, for engaging constructively on this matter, the Minister's willingness to meet with me shows there is a genuine openness within government to look at this anomaly more closely. The Justice Secretary has recently indicated that the government, that the government are considering opportunities to simplify the record, the criminal record regime, particularly in relation to childhood offences, with the aim of ensuring the system is clear and proportionate and does not unduly harm future job prospects.

That signals recognition that reform is needed. My Lords, if the amendment were to be accepted, it would be helpful for the review also to consider the anomaly and to begin to address the issue. I have concerns about which I believe are deeply unfair. In preparing the report, the Secretary of State would be asked to consult widely, including with employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and organisations representing people with convictions to ensure that the review reflects the experience of those most affected.

My Lords, accepting this modest amendment would be good and a constructive step forward. Simply a request for review that could help inform future policy.

18:23

Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)

- -

And proposed after clause 164, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I rise very. >> Much to support this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much to support this amendment. In committee I tabled an amendment which was debated when the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, was was acting Minister at the time, which would have prevented a criminal record being kept for children who are prosecuted by private rail companies under section five of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, and criminal records being created as a result of that. Because there seemed to be a practice in certain magistrates courts for prosecuting such children for what were inadvertent youthful transgressions which were wrong, but which certainly didn't merit a criminal record which could be searched by potential employers for between 8 and 11 years, as I understand it.

So what I would really like is a commitment that this review, if it's if it takes place, will cover that sort of case. It's all part of that bigger picture of children having criminal records created against them.

18:25

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lords, I just wanted to give an enthusiastic, enthusiastic support to this amendment. In the name of Baroness Sater. I think that criminal record disclosure regime is very important. We all understand that we don't want the worst of the worst working with, for example, children and so on and so forth. But the impact on rehabilitation is something quite serious. So on Monday evening, it was a great relief when the government revealed that those of us who were worried that Non-crime hate incident might be stored on a criminal database and that could be used to prevent future employment or volunteering opportunities, the Minister, I was glad to say, said that that was misplaced concern.

Although having your the word hate by your name on a police database might might not be what one would want. But in this instance we're talking about people who have got criminal convictions. They are people who have been in prison or have been serving their time. And I have, in working with former prisoners, known former drug addicts, gang members who have been invaluable in terms of volunteers or working with young people or youth services. But many of them are just simply kept out of being able to help because of the borrowing scheme.

And just a group of ex-prisoners that I had some dealing with wanted to do some work with care homes, and we desperately need people to work in care homes, and they were fully rehabilitated and they basically were going to be barred from doing so. And it just seemed to me to be unfair and counterproductive, as well as a teenage victim of a grooming gang, a victim who was convicted herself for soliciting prostitution at the age of 16. She should, of course, get a pardon.

But the main thing is, is that she's even barred from going on her own child's school trips, and she desperately wants to help out in the school. And she can't. And so these things are should be looked at quite straightforwardly. So it's it's tricky because I'm aware that we don't want threatening people to work with, for example, children, but we shouldn't be risk averse. And I just would like to commend the noble Lady, the Baroness, for the wording, which is an appropriate balance between public protection and rehabilitation.

It just seems to me there is no point putting people in prison telling them that if they actually rehabilitate, they will be different people and they'll be given a second chance. And actually when they leave prison, they're denied that second chance. You might as well just carry on being the criminal. And so I think this is a, as they say, a no brainer. And I hope the government will accept it.

18:28

Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)

- -

Rise in support of of this of >> Rise in support of of this of amendment 39390A tabled by noble Baroness Slater. I just want to Baroness Slater. I just want to give a practical look at this. As many of you know, I've been a youth and community worker for well over 35 years now, and one of my biggest projects was to run a job club. And many of the young men in particular in my job club, were very, very disappointed when they couldn't get to work.

So invariably they'd had some brush with the law that meant prison time. They had done the work to work on themselves, to be a productive member of society came out. And then the barring code DBS all kinds of things got in the way. I would ask you, what do you believe they return to? Then they return to the only skill they had, which was criminal activity. And most of the most serious criminals. I dealt with the repeat criminals, the ones that you really did need to cross the road for was because at that moment where we could have assessed them slightly differently, where their, their, their youthful transgressions could have been looked at in a different light.

We didn't. And then they became a really serious long term problem to us all. When I spoke to a group of young men and I keep saying men because I've been doing work with gang involved young men, when I spoke to a group of young men very recently, one of them finished our conversation by saying to me, well, you, that's us are doing it to yourselves. Because he said, if we continue to view him as a criminal, he would continue to behave as a criminal.

And that's the way he went. Now we're all very certain of two things that we don't want people who've committed crimes of the worst kind to go unpunished and get away with it. And we do want to protect public safety. But when these rules first came in, or some time ago now, and our protection, awareness and the rules that we have have greatly advanced, and as a trustee of a charity who does youth work, I was my job was to look at people's criminal record and help assess if we could help them work with our young people in a safe manner.

And invariably, we could do that. And with the people we we couldn't do it with, we we had to ask them to leave. But the idea that the government has some kind of review is long overdue. If you really do want to rehabilitate people, you have to show them that there is some chance that they can re-enter society and make up for what they may have done incorrectly. We do understand that there is a balance, but as again, as the noble Baroness Fox pointed out, the wording of this amendment contains that balance.

So I commend it to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you all. From these benches. We want to start by thanking Baroness Levitt start by thanking Baroness Levitt for the meeting that she had with my noble friend Lord Marks and Lord Ponsonby. I gather Lady Sattar had a different meeting, but a different meeting, but nonetheless we thank her for the for the meeting and we also entirely support the amendment and were very pleased that Lady Levitt had talked about the principles of agreeing with the review, and we think it's very important.

We absolutely agree with the principle that Lady Sattar set out that children should not be adversely affected by backlogs, which they have absolutely no control over at all. And but there's a broader principle there as well, about the age at which whatever happened, whether it was an offence or a caution, absolutely should be the age at which they are dealt with. We also believe that youth cautions this is really for the review. The

18:31

youth cautions and conditional cautions should not remain on the young person's record once they've young person's record once they've become an adult, and we hope that will be taken into account in the review as well. I also echo Lady review as well. I also echo Lady Fox's comments on Lady Sita's very careful wording in little C about appropriate balances, the public appropriate balances, the public protection with rehabilitation. This seems to me to be absolutely common sense, so we endorse that

18:32

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

common sense, so we endorse that and hope the government will use that as the basis of its review.

18:32

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

Can I thank my noble friend Lady >> Can I thank my noble friend Lady Sattar for tabling this amendment on what is a hugely important issue? on what is a hugely important issue? I can be relatively brief. My noble friend, Lady Sarah gave ample reasons for this amendment. Criminal records, when disclosed, should be done so regularly and proportionately across all cases. She gave many compelling reasons for this amendment and as she said, it is a modest amendment. It doesn't ask much of the Secretary of State.

And I agree absolutely with my noble friend that this system would simply benefit from an updated review. And for all those reasons, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

18:33

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sattar, supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for their amendment. Perhaps I should first of all just explain why I'm answering for this. The noble Baroness Levitt has had considerable engagement with the noble Baroness and with other members of the House on this matter. But the amendment itself relates to the the disclosure and barring scheme, which is a Home Office responsibility. So I'm answering for that. But in principle, there are a number of areas where there's crossover between the Ministry of Justice and myself.

And I've noted the support of the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere and the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley, and indeed the noble Baroness Brinton and the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel for the general principles that we've got. I just want to start by saying the criminal records disclosure regime is designed to strike a balance between supporting ex-offenders to put their past behind them and ensuring that we keep people safe. The regime plays a crucial role in helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly for roles.

Indeed, as the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley mentioned in health, social care and education, it also aims to avoid the disclosure of old and trivial offending so that people can make fresh starts and get on with their lives. Because all of us know that employment and a fresh start is absolutely critical to preventing reoffending in the future. And I think that the significance of employment for reducing reoffending should not be ever underestimated. Along with housing, family support and optimism for the future.

So we do keep the regime regularly under review as a matter of course, so that it remains fit for purpose and response to the concerns as they arise. And I do recognise the value of stepping back and carrying out the more strategic assessment that has been put in the amendment here today. Now, I know that noble Lords again know this, but the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for justice and Lord Chancellor has already given the commitment that the government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime, to ensure that it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

And on December the 2nd, my right hon. Friend did. In response to part one of Sir Brian Leveson's Independent Review of Criminal Courts, confirmed that the government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, and particularly again, given the discussions that we've had, reflecting what the noble Baroness Levitt has said in relation to childhood offences, and my department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together to look at next steps.

We do intend to publish a consultation, which in a sense is the review. The noble Lady is asking for setting out proposals for specific reforms on disclosure of childhood criminal records, and the plan currently is to have that consultation published by the end of the year. I think if we can do it earlier, we will. There's a lot of work to do that I want to get that done as quickly as possible. I know that my noble friend Baroness Levitt would want to do the same, but I can certainly give the assurance that by the end of the year we'll have that consultation out.

And that, I think, will give the strategic review that the noble Baroness seeks to achieve with her amendment. I believe it is right to prioritise consideration of how the regime affects those who offend as children, and I would, in the light of those reassurances, ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments, but I do. In doing so, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Levitt, and the work that has been done to date in engagement, say to the noble Lady that we thank her for the external pressure that has been put on us on those matters.

But I hope that with the assurances I've given that she could indeed withdraw the amendment.

18:37

Baroness Sater (Conservative)

- -

Thank you very much. I'm very >> Thank you very much. I'm very grateful to all Lord Dixon Baroness Shah have contributed to DLUHC Shah have contributed to DLUHC Carter Baroness Fox, my noble friend Lord Bailey, who have all spoken very positively and very passionately. I think about this amendment. So I would also like to thank the Minister for his extremely positive response, and I look forward to hearing more about the consultation at the end of the year. I think speed is of the essence.

I think we'd like to see it as soon as possible. We've heard lots of anomalies from myself and other situations with criminal records where we think we should be dealing with them, so, but thank you very much for for your for your very positive responses and I will withdraw the amendment. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sister pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Now we return to the main Now we return to the main Marshalled List, amendment 391 Lord Davies of Gower.

18:38

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Davies of Gower. >> My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment 391 standing in my name and those of my noble friend Lord and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe at committee, speaking on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. Lady Alone, I raised the case of police Officer Martin Blake. His case served as the perfect example of the difficulties of serving as a police firearms officer. The Independent Office for Police Conduct, as is the norm, investigated Martyn Blake following a police firearms operation in London that resulted in the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba, and he was subsequently charged with murder.

The case proceeded through the full criminal justice process, and the evidence was examined in open court before a jury. Under the rigorous standards of criminal law, and after hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted him. For most people, an acquittal after an initial investigation and then a full criminal trial would represent the end of the matter. But in this case, despite the acquittal, the iOPC indicated that the circumstances of the case would still be examined further in the context of police misconduct proceedings.

They then reopened those proceedings, constituting the second iOPC investigation and the third overall investigation. So, my Lords, I pose this question. Whatever one's view of the original incident, the situation raises the question of how many times should an officer be required to defend themselves for the same conduct? We have had restrictions on double jeopardy since the 12th century, but to me this appears to be triple jeopardy. Police officers can be investigated by the iOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted and then reinvestigated again.

And so my amendment amends the Police Reform Act of 2002 to ensure that where a police officer has been investigated for a complaint, conduct matter or DSA matter prosecuted in a criminal court and acquitted, the same conduct cannot simply be reinvestigated again by the Independent Office for Police Conduct unless there is substantial new evidence. And that last point is important. I note that the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 did reform the law of double jeopardy by permitting retrial, where there is new and compelling evidence.

And I completely understand that if there is new evidence that comes to light, then the iOPC may need to reopen that investigation. So there is a safeguard in the amendment to ensure fairness of the police complaints system. I do not dispute the importance of police accountability. Public confidence in policing depends on robust oversight, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a vital role in that framework. But accountability must also be balanced with basic principles of justice. And when the criminal courts have examined a case and reached a verdict and reached a verdict, there must be a strong presumption that the matter is settled.

My Lords, I know only too well that police officers make difficult and sometimes life and death decisions in circumstances that are fast moving, dangerous and highly uncertain, and they do so in order to protect the public. When something goes wrong, it is entirely right that their actions are scrutinised carefully and independently. But it is equally important that the process is fair, proportionate and finite. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will realise the harrowing mental burdens placed on the police and be able to accept this amendment.

All I am asking for is for him to meet me halfway and bring something for Third Reading, or perhaps commit to bringing forward something along these lines in the upcoming bill on police reform. If he does not accept my amendment today and cannot give me an assurance about police reform, then I will seek to divide the House.

18:42

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

Proposed after clause 167, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> Sorry. >> I might just say to the noble Lord, who has just spoken, that in other circumstances, in family other circumstances, in family cases, a sexual or physical abuse, someone can be tried and acquitted, but then dealt with in the family court on very much the same evidence, partly because there is a difference in the standard of proof. The standard of proof in a criminal case is much greater than the standard of proof in civil and family proceedings.

Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to this amendment. Intervene because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cannot support. This amendment and I. Cannot support it for two reasons. Firstly, support it for two reasons. Firstly, because it imposes a regime which is wholly different from the is wholly different from the regulatory practices in every other regulatory authority. For the last 15 years, I have practised exclusively as a legal adviser to regulatory panels. That includes the doctors, the nurses, the midwives, the healthcare practitioners and the social workers. And in each and every case, a person, a practitioner, a registrant who has been acquitted by a criminal court can be brought before the regulatory panel to face misconduct proceedings.

And that is because the standard of proof is different. The criminal acquittal means that they fail to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. But the regulatory panel is entitled to

18:44

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

find, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct has been made out. And that takes me to

18:44

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

been made out. And that takes me to the second point. Not only is it contrary to all the practices that

18:44

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

contrary to all the practices that we as a Parliament have imposed on other regulatory authorities, which I have identified, it is also contrary to the merits, because it may very well be that an officer may very well be that an officer whose properly been acquitted is nonetheless on a balance of probabilities, which is the test within the regulatory authority guilty of misconduct. And I believe that that option should remain. And I am very close to the position of the noble and learned Lady, drawing from her experiences in the family courts.

Mine is an experience in the regulatory proceedings and what we are doing by this amendment is profoundly different from what we've imposed on the regulatory authorities.

18:45

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

Name to this amendment. And I >> Name to this amendment. And I thought Lord Davis set out very well the case. It is linked particularly to the Chris Kaba case, and I'm going to try and address the points Lord Hailsham makes. I think it's a fair point. I concede that there are times when, even if somebody's been acquitted of a criminal offence, in this case the charge of murder, you might discover that, in fact, there are some disciplinary issues which are not directly related to the death.

But as a professional body, you may want to address. So say, for example, the ammunition not being signed out properly or something that was important but not relevant to a criminal charge. The concern in this case, and as Lord Davis explained, was a substantially, it appears from the press release, and this is all we have to go on from the IOPC is that they basically laid their charge based on the criminal case. May I just continue a little based on the criminal case, i.e.

the charge of murder? And that makes it very difficult to understand. My second point is that the amount of time this takes, and I'm sure this can happen sometimes in medical cases, is very substantial. I think in the Chris Kaba case, I think from event to criminal case, about three years, the officer is now probably going to wait another two, because the point that Lord Davis also addressed, which is the double jeopardy point, is probably nearer to triple or more jeopardy because there are 2 or 3 bites at the cherry as far as the officer's concerned.

And I know that you've got to look at it beyond the officers understanding. But first of all, there is an assessment of whether there is a criminal charge. Should that be a negative, then there's a misconduct charge, should both be negative. If there is a death involved, which we're particularly concerned about, police, firearms officers, a coroner's court will then be convened, which have waited for the two previous decisions, at the end of which, and we've seen it, there can be an unlawful killing verdict, at which point the whole thing starts again, which accounts for some of the very long processes.

Now, one of my concerns has been, why can't these decisions be considered in parallel rather than sequentially? And I'm still not really heard a proper explanation of that. But my final point in this particular part is, should it have been that the IOPC in the police case had considered that there was a gross misconduct or a conduct issue? Why didn't they charge at the beginning? Why did they wait till the outcome of the criminal case? Unless, as Lord Davis has suggested, more evidence had been discovered in the criminal case, that might have made a difference, and no one has said that.

So those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are the reasons. But Lord Hailsham. Sits down. Perhaps he will forgive me. What he was suggesting, forgive me. What he was suggesting, I think, is that it is wrong to hold a subsequent disciplinary proceeding on precisely the same facts that gave rise to the acquittal, but in the regulatory acquittal, but in the regulatory proceedings of which I have been speaking, that is precisely the case. You very often get a practitioner registrant who has been acquitted before a criminal court, then comes before a regulatory panel facing misconduct proceedings on precisely the same facts.

So the point I'm making, if I may, is firstly to the noble Lord that we are seeking to put in place a regime wholly different from that which operates in every other profession. And secondly, we are depriving people of the option of finding an officer guilty of misconduct when, on a balance of probabilities, the officer is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guilty of misconduct. I'm not going to try and argue the case. I'm just I'm making my argument and I understand that he argument and I understand that he might make his what the other regulatory bodies of course, don't have is something called the IOPC, have is something called the IOPC, a body that is charged to investigate this type of thing. That's fine, but it imposes a That's fine, but it imposes a further burden and a further process that the only person, the two groups, I think, badly affected two groups, I think, badly affected by it, the person who dies, family and the officer in the case.

I of course make the case for the officer, but both matter in a way that I think both have been badly damaged. For me, this is a subset of the later discussion we'll have about police firearms officers, but it's just one indication of some of the aggravation of their position when on the whole, well, in every case, when charged, they've been found not guilty in this case. The case following a three year process, it took three hours for a criminal court to find there was no case to answer, and they were found not guilty.

Very hard to understand why the IOPC draw that time. Having not charged in the first case, the first place at the event time, then suddenly instigate it at a late stage. So I think for for all those reasons that I've tried to identify, it's one of a series of things that police firearms officers who take an incredible risk on our behalf, I think, are an important group that we have to consider. And unless we find some comfort for them in law, the danger is they will turn around and stop doing it on our behalf.

I think this is a help. I accept that, Lord Hailsham, your fundamental point that it may be inconsistent. I'd argue they're in a pretty inconsistent place so far as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law and the process is, is set up now. A further point to the points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A further point to the points made by Viscount Hailsham with which I agree. And it is this the which I agree. And it is this the purpose of the criminal proceedings is distinct from the purpose of the disciplinary regulatory proceedings. The purpose of the criminal proceedings, of course, is to decide whether this individual

18:50

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

decide whether this individual should face a sanctions serious sanction of many years in prison for what is alleged. The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is entirely different. The purpose is to protect the public, to decide whether a person who serves as a police officer is an appropriate person, in all the circumstances, to continue to do so, and it may well be the case. It's uncomfortable, but it may well be the case that the director general, on reviewing all the evidence, takes the view that this particular officer should not be continue to be in the police force, should not continue to hold the responsibilities that he or she does, and should not continue to have the powers that he or she does.

And if this amendment is passed, we will be putting the director general in an impossible position, because it will mean that he or she has to take no action to seek to impose disciplinary proceedings on an officer against whom there may be very considerable evidence that they are simply unsuitable to remain in the police service. And that is very similar, I would suggest, to the situation that was drawn attention to by the noble Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, because the purpose of the family law proceedings is entirely different to the purpose of the criminal proceedings.

Purpose of the family law proceedings is to decide whether the child needs to be protected, and therefore those proceedings can quite properly continue in relation to the same allegations that were rejected by the Criminal Court.

18:52

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

A two Penn'orth into this, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the National Police Ethics of the National Police Ethics Committee, but I'm speaking more as a serving bishop. I have to hear disciplinary complaints against disciplinary complaints against clergy. Sometimes those clergy have committed something which is being investigated first by the police to answer Lord Hogan-Howe point. Often the police tell us we don't want you interfering until we have finished. If the result of the criminal proceeding is that the person is convicted, I can then do quite a summary process in terms of applying a penalty, perhaps depriving that member of the clergy from serving in their parish, perhaps banning them from ministry for a period of time or or for life.

But all of that is very much on that balance of probabilities. On the civil standard. It's very, very different from the criminal standard. There are many cases where clergy are actually, you know, the police investigation. It may not lead to to a trial, it may lead to a trial and acquittal. But there are still major issues around the suitability of that person to be a Minister of religion, the their safeguarding ability. And I need to be able my people in my diocese by following a proper distress on exactly the same facts as the criminal case was was dealing with.

But to that very different standard of proof. And I think, again, as chair of police, police ethics, the ability of the police to, to to be respected by the public, I think for me demands that there are occasions when somebody who has been acquitted at the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt, disciplinary matter should still follow at that civil standard of on the balance of probability. So I could not support this current amendment to.

18:54

Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise in support of amendment 392 in my name. This amendment is about fairness, about discipline, about humanity, misconduct, investigations that drift on for months and years are damaging to everyone involved the officer, the family, the complainant and the public. Confidence in the system. Secondly, where these cases run on endlessly, the consequences can be severe. Long investigations place huge strain on mental health and in the worst cases, such prolonged uncertainty has been linked to suicide.

That alone should make this House pause and ask whether the system, the current system, is working as it should. Thirdly, this amendment does not block proper investigation. I want to stress that it does not block proper investigation, and it does not touch criminal matters. It is simple. It is simple to say that after 12 months, excuse me, it is simply to say that after 12 months there should be there should be independent scrutiny by legally qualified person so that cases can move on properly and an officer can even be brought back into service or removed from the service without delay.

Finally, swift justice is a matter for all involved. It matters for the innocent officer who should not be left in limbo. It matters for the complainants who deserve prompt and credible outcomes. Justice delayed helps no one. This amendment would bring greater urgency, greater accountability. Here's the point greater accountability and a greater sense of fairness to the police disciplinary system. Morale in the police force, particularly the met, is very, very low. And one of the things that officers continually point to is the length of investigations when an officer is accused of something.

Now, this isn't to say the officer's innocent or not, that's a whole other affair. It's the length of the investigation. If you speak to any of your local bobbies, particularly if they're officer, they're likely to tell you that they're considering leaving when you when you probe a little bit deeper, this question of investigations always comes up. And one of the major roles of this government now has to be to improve police morale by doing the right thing and making the whole system fairer.

I come from the community, the black community, the community arguably most over and under police simultaneously in this country. And if we are to have a police force that can actually care for the people care for the people who have the most interaction with the police. We need to raise the morale. So I commend this amendment to you. It could be a very serious, very good step in the right direction to make these investigations fair and also to raise police morale.

18:57

Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Remnant 393A in My name, which seeks to codify the decision which seeks to codify the decision in R W brackets 80 brackets of the Supreme Court, which relates to Supreme Court, which relates to police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. The amendment relates to the test used to determine whether an officer misconducted themselves when he or she used force in self-defence. The amendment would place in statute the current legal position that an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others face an immediate danger and crucially, that where that belief is mistaken, the mistake must also be an objectively reasonable one.

I have retabled this amendment to encourage further consideration by the government of their decision. Following Sir Adrian Fulford's rapid review to depart from this test, under their proposal, an officer would be able to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if the mistake was unreasonable. My Lords, this is a significant shift and one that's intended to be made by Statutory Instrument and without public consultation. My Lord, since this is report, I will not report repeat the arguments made at committee.

However, I continue to believe firmly that the current civil law test is the right one in the conduct of in the context of misconduct proceedings. Of course, as many have rightly emphasised, it's essential that officers required to make split second decisions in life threatening situations are treated fairly. But fairness to officers must be balanced with the equally important obligations of learning, improvement and accountability of officers. The current test already achieves that balance to the previous references to delays in the misconduct proceedings arena.

I would say that these are matters which should be addressed by review, rather than removing the possibility of misconduct proceedings. It's important to be clear that this amendment does not concern the criminal law. It doesn't touch on criminal prosecutions as was suggested during committee. The. To answer the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe with respect. The reason that disciplinary proceedings await the outcome of criminal proceedings is that this is what the police ask. I chair the Safeguarding Service in the Diocese of Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster, and in many cases the police will say to us, please stop, do nothing.

And the policy is we stop and do nothing until the police say we can do something. So that is an important reservation. The. The. I beg your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pardon? The. Just address that simple point. So just to be clear, what I was So just to be clear, what I was talking about in these cases, the IOPC or the investigating body, they are in all possession of all they are in all possession of all the information they've gained, interviews, etc. evidence from the scene. So they're in a good position to judge query criminal charge or at that stage query misconduct charge. But they wait misconduct charge. But they wait until the end of all the process to instigate the misconduct charge.

They could have indicated at the beginning, indicating Lord Pannick point about maybe an employment issue. I find it confusing the wait to the outcome of a criminal case, for which they've had no reason. Explanation for the jury's decision. It would in a civil case, but they wouldn't in a jury's case because there is no, you know, reason offered. So that's my point. It can be different in other professions. I understand, because they didn't have the benefit of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigators deciding what to put forward to CPS. As police ombudsman, I was faced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As police ombudsman, I was faced with exactly this problem, and I knew that our criminal proceedings knew that our criminal proceedings had to be dealt with first. So if I may carry on, then what we're may carry on, then what we're talking about here is the standard to be approved in, to be applied in misconduct proceedings. And proceedings exist in large part not just to ensure accountability, but to enable forces to reflect and learn. They also enable the police to demonstrate the take that they take seriously.

Situations involving the use of force, even when that force has been held not to be criminal. Despite that, the use of force must be necessary and proportionate, and this has broader implications. As I say, a disciplinary system that cannot scrutinise unreasonable mistakes risks undermining public confidence in policing. Retaining the civil law test supports public confidence by ensuring that unreasonable errors of judgement are open to scrutiny. Removing that scrutiny would weaken the learning function of misconduct proceedings.

Prior to and pose risks to public safety, and give the impression that unreasonable policing errors lie beyond the review of accountability. And my Lord, that would impact inevitably by diminishing trust in policing. For these reasons, I would be very grateful if the noble Lord the Minister, could indicate what steps the government are willing to take to address the serious concerns raised about moving to the criminal standard for self-defence in misconduct proceedings, particularly in the absence of wider public consultation or engagement with the communities most affected by police use of force.

I'm grateful to justice to inquest to the National Black Police Association and to stopwatch for their help and support in this amendment. My Lords, these amendments all address the same question how do we protect the public from unlawful force while treating officers fairly when they carry out dangerous duties on our behalf? From these benches we start from two simple principles. There must be clear, consistent standards of accountability, and we must not drift into a two tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else.

On

19:03

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

amendment 391, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, we noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, we have particular concerns. It would in effect close off the possibility of independent scrutiny by the IOPC. Once a criminal court had acquitted an officer. That might sound an officer. That might sound attractive, but in the interests of family. But it risks confusing two family. But it risks confusing two distinct questions whether conduct meets the high criminal threshold for conviction, and whether it meets the professional standards we rightly expect from those who wield state power.

We're more sympathetic to amendment 392 from the noble Lord Lord Bailey misconduct cases that drift for years are bad for families seeking answers for complainants whose evidence fades. For taxpayers funding, prolonged suspensions and not least for officers left in limbo, the broad thrust of the amendment that investigations need clear expectations and real grip is one we support. While recognising that complex cases sometimes need longer and that rigid timelines can carry risks. Amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, lady alone seeks to put beyond doubt the tests that should apply in police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force.

We support the aim of aligning those proceedings with the Supreme Court's approach in W80 as a modest but important safeguard for bereaved families and communities who need to see that internal standards reflect the law, as articulated by the highest court. If the government are now moving in that direction through secondary legislation, so much the better. But Parliament is entitled to a clear on the record explanation of the test, not simply an assurance that it will be sorted out behind the scenes.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just say this isn't a rigid timeline for anything other rigid timeline for anything other than a review to look at the timeline? I accept that a complicated case may need to run, complicated case may need to run, but even a complicated case, somebody should say, OK, this is complicated. We need more time. But complicated. We need more time. But in many instances, 12 months would be the point where somebody said,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we need to wrap up and move on. I'm grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davis for initiating his amendment 391, and I know that it is 391, and I know that it is motivated by the desire to support police officers, the difficult role that they do. And he and I share that they do. And he and I share that motivation. I say to him, however, that that amendment as drafted has the effect of

19:06

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

drafted has the effect of curtailing existing powers that the Independent Office for Police Conduct can use to both reinvestigate or reopen a case that it had previously closed. The amendment also seeks more generally to prevent the re-opening of investigations into complaints against the police from the public. Again, if such complaints have resulted in criminal proceedings which have not resulted in a conviction. Now I take very straightforwardly the points by the noble Viscount Hailsham, the noble and learned Lady, Lady Butler-sloss and the noble Lord Pannick, who actually made the point that I was going to make, that we know, first of all, of no recent cases where the Independent Office for Police Conduct has reopened a closed case, but also it is in the public interest.

The cases of alleged police misconduct can, if need be, be reopened in the light of substantive new evidence or evidence that the original investigation was flawed. And, as has been said by the three noble members who have spoken, not all criminal proceedings against serving police officers involved line of duty incidents. Some may involve serious corruption, sexual violence by police perpetrators, and there may be compelling public interest arguments for reopening such cases. The powers of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to reinvestigate a case are limited.

Already limited by existing law, which requires the Iopc to have compelling reasons to reopen. This is a legal threshold and is already a high bar, but disciplinary proceedings involving different evidential tests, as was mentioned by those who contributed, and the lower threshold for finding misconduct or gross misconduct, is the balance of probabilities. They also serve a different purpose than a criminal trial. We rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers, so a blanket presumption that no police officer who has been acquitted in the criminal courts should face disciplinary proceedings would, in the government's view, be quite wrong.

And I think that shares the point of view put by the noble Viscount, the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Lady. And that is a very compelling argument which I hope the noble Lord Davies of Gower will reflect on if he seeks to push the amendment, which I hope in due course he will not. Amendment 392. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to improve the timeliness of police complaints and misconduct investigations by creating a new system of legal adjudicators with the power to overrule both Chief Constable's and the Independent Office for Police Conduct by closing down investigations where they determine there is no good or sufficient reason for any delay.

And my Lords, as we previously debated, unnecessary delays in these investigations are not in anyone's best interests. I know the impact they will have on public confidence, and I know the impact they will have on the welfare of police officers involved. But whilst it is right to strive for improvements in town, this amendment risks in my view, adding another layer of bureaucracy, thereby adding cost and delay in not removing it. The government is committed to supporting chief constables to remove those not fit for purpose.

But my Lords, the amendment has the potential not only to overrule the responsibility of Chief Constable's and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but also to create some perverse outcomes. The government's recent police Reform White Paper already confirms our commitment to an independent, end to end review of the police conduct system, and I know that is something the noble Baroness Doocey would support, which will include looking at timeliness and how this can be improved. And I again, further process will be brought back following the police White Paper proposals.

Now amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, lady alone would require that. Where a police officer uses force based on an honestly held but mistaken belief, that belief can only justify the use of force if the mistake was objectively reasonable. In effect, it seeks to codify, as she knows, the Supreme Court's decision in the case of the police officer w a t, which found that the Civil standard applied to this tests. Now, as the House will know, police officers do carry out important and demanding roles.

The government is determined to ensure that both the public and the police are able to feel confident in the police accountability system. That is why, and again, the noble Baroness referred to the review that we commissioned from Timothy Godwin, former senior police officer, and Sir Adrian Fulford, to carry out an independent review into police accountability with a rapid review. Now, the findings of that review, again, the noble Baroness Doocey referred to this were published in October 25th, and it recommended that the government change the legal test for the use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal Law Test.

The government, again has accepted this recommendation, and we are in the process of making the necessary changes via secondary legislation, and our intention is that these changes will come into force later this year. In the spring of 2026. So I just say to the noble Lady that I understand her concept, but I can't support it because we have put in place the independent commissioners to examine the matter thoroughly. They've heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their recommendation was clear.

The current approach has created confusion, inconsistency and I accept a very bad effect on police morale, particularly among firearm officers. So the changes we're making, I hope, will bring clarity to the system. And I want to reassure the House it will still be the case that any force used must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. And I hope that, again, it may not, but I hope that satisfies the noble Lady in her comments and also the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

Finally, in this group, my Lords, I just want to speak very briefly to government amendments three, nine five and 397. They are technical amendments to ensure the specialist police force's barred and advisory lists are consistently applied across police forces. The provisions in clauses 1732181 of this bill and schedule 21 to the Bill are part of a broader effort to raise standards and conduct within law enforcement, and it includes also the closure of a legislative loophole. These technical amendments are tabled today to ensure that we have alignment in the treatment of civilian employees within the police service.

I thank all noble Lords who've spoken in this debate, but I hope, I hope I've satisfied the noble Lady Baroness O'Loan. I hope I've satisfied the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington, and I hope that not just. I have satisfied the noble Lord Davies of Gower, but that he is able to, on reflection, listen to his noble friend Viscount Hailsham, and the noble Lord Pannick, and the noble Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, and therefore not push his amendment to a vote, but as ever, is entirely a matter for him.

I beg to move the amendments in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the noble learned lady. Butler-sloss, and to the noble Lord Hogan-Howe for his very valid points and for injecting his points and for injecting his valuable experience into this debate. I would say to the my noble friend, Viscount Hailsham, that it is wrong to draw a comparison between policing and the medical profession.

Policing is uniquely different. My Lords, it has been a thoughtful discussion about how we maintain robust police accountability, whilst also ensuring fairness to the officers who serve the public. The case of Martyn Blake has brought this issue into the public consciousness, and whatever view one takes of the circumstances of that tragic incident, the fact remains that the case was heard in open court before jury and the officer was acquitted. Yet the prospect of further investigation has remained. Now, for many officers watching that case unfold, the concern is not about accountability.

It's about whether there is ever a point at which a matter can truly be regarded as concluded. And as my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington pointed out, there is much discussion currently about police morale and those young

19:15

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

in-service officers leaving the police service. So the proposal in my amendment is fair to officers. my amendment is fair to officers. It is clear for the system and it maintains the integrity of the oversight framework. My Lords, it oversight framework. My Lords, it is highly unfortunate and extremely disappointing that the noble Lords Minister has not been able to at least meet me halfway and make the commitment I sought. And so on that basis, I do beg to test the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis, I do beg to test the opinion of the House. The question is. That amendment 391 be agreed to as many that opinion will say, content content, not content. The question will be decided by

19:16

Division

19:29

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, may. >> I first of all thank the noble order of the Minister for the briefing which he made available to my noble friend Earl of Minto on my noble friend Earl of Minto on the current conflict, and may I also thank all our Armed Forces personnel who are currently deployed in protecting this country and all our interests in the region, whether British citizens, bases or military assets. We admire their courage, their professionalism and their unstinting commitment to serve in an environment which is unpredictable and frightening.

We are in their debt and we never take their contribution for granted here. We are particularly mindful of that as we remember the United States service personnel who have lost their lives in the conflict. Sadly, conflict delivers inevitable death and injury. So we think of all those impacted by recent events. My Lord, I am not going to engage in hindsight. I want to focus on three things what the government knew, when the government knew it, and what it did with that knowledge.

Now, unlike His Majesty's opposition, the government has access to high quality defence, security and military intelligence. So answering these three questions is important. Candour in answering them may help to inform what to do the next time a threat manifests itself. To focus the mind of the noble order of the Minister. Can I share what I knew, when I knew it, and what I would have done with that limited knowledge? Firstly, we have always known the toxic threat presented by Iran. It is a malign and evil regime with a hatred of Western culture intent on developing nuclear weapons.

By the beginning of this year, it was clear that President Trump was heading for decisive action. Secondly, by February, President Trump had adopted a bellicose approach, making it more likely, rather than less likely, that the US would trigger a conflict. On 11th February, 16 days before the first American missiles hit Iran, the United States formally requested the use of British bases to facilitate that attack, so His Majesty's Government knew two weeks in advance that there was an overwhelming likelihood of an Iranian response that would threaten our citizens.

Our armed forces personnel are military bases and are sovereign territory. Given that knowledge, I would have asked the Chief of Defence Staff to move heaven and earth to muster whatever assets he could lay his hands on and get them out to the region. Unfortunately, appears that was not the response of the government. We had no warship in the Gulf. We know that no type 45 destroyer was deployed in that intervening two weeks, HMS Anson remained in Australia and no type 23 was sent to the region either by Lord's, removing our one warship from the region with no replacement at such a critical time is extraordinary.

A type 45 destroyer dispatched to the region would have provided invaluable protection against air attack on our Cyprus base. The public assessment of how the government responded is unflattering to the government, and I shall leave the noble Lords Minister to counter that negative view. But to do so, he needs to provide specific answers to the three questions which I have posed. The crux of the matter appears to me to be this we have been attacked. Our bases and sovereign territory are under threat, and UK citizens in the region have faced attack.

Whether we were involved in the initial strikes is immaterial. Iran does not discriminate. The United Kingdom is in this war now, whether we like it or not. Given the simple fact, distinctions between offence and defence, are semantics simply not relevant? If someone fires a missile at you, you have to do everything within your power to stop it and then stop them from firing another. My Lords, I shall await the noble Lord. The minister's response. But if part of the government's dilemma was uncertainty about what assets could be mustered, that is extremely serious and in such dangerous times unacceptable.

Can I therefore ask the noble Lord, the Minister? Will the government immediately audit availability of naval assets and urgently improve sea readiness? Because this conflict underlines the imperative of the defence industry plan being finalised, can it be published immediately? Adhering to the agreed build timescales for the type 26 and type 31 frigates is now critical. These ships are needed by the UK. So will the noble Lord the Minister, confirm that no export order will be permitted to dislocate that delivery schedule? What does the noble Lord the Minister, consider? Are the lessons to be learned from the UK's pace of response to this conflict? And finally, my Lords, disquiet has been expressed publicly that the new contract which the government entered into with circle ended round the clock staffing at the naval base, can the noble Lord the Minister, confirm if that was one of the reasons for the extraordinary delay in getting HMS Dragon ready to leave port?

19:34

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Here, here, my Lords. >> Here, here, my Lords. >> As is so frequently the case on defence matters, I stand as the defence matters, I stand as the second opposition spokesperson to raise questions to the Minister, raise questions to the Minister, but find myself very much in agreement with the opposition front bench and having heard statements from the other place, I had thought that today might be a somewhat different day and there might be some differences of opinion coming from the two front bench opposition spokespeople.

But Baroness Goldie has raised many questions which really do need to be answered. This isn't a question of the rights or wrongs of action. We are in a situation that we may not have chosen to be in, but we are there now and we need to work out what His Majesty's Government is able to do, what it's planning to do, not obviously giving away any operational secrets, but at least to be thinking about what assets do we have available, and also to be thinking a little bit more about how we interact with our allies.

So rather than repeating what the noble Lady Baroness Goldie has said, with one exception, which is obviously to put on the record the Liberal Democrats, thanks to His Majesty's Armed forces, as always, stepping up and going beyond the call of duty. That is absolutely essential. And their role is so crucial. So I do place that on the record. But, my Lords, as the noble Lady Baroness Goldie said, the UK response in terms of the ability to defend our assets, including the sovereign base in Cyprus, did seem to be glacially slow.

And if the government's view is that all action should be defensive and from these benches we would indeed think that defensive action is something we would support offensive action. We would have been less sure about engaging in in the initial mission, but we are now in a situation where there are more likely attacks against the United Kingdom because of the current situation in the Middle East. So we do need to understand the extent to which His Majesty's Government and the Mod is able to up.

Our presence in the region is HMS Dragon, and our Royal Fleet Auxiliary line. Are they the only naval vessels were able to send? Are we planning other movements? Are we really doing everything possible? But there is a question that I think remains somewhat elusive, and the statement is given in the other place, very much talked about defensive action and ensuring legality that the United Kingdom would only act where there is a clear legal base. But as my right hon.

My hon. Friend in the other place, Richard Ford, asked, how does His Majesty's Government distinguish between offensive and defensive action in the current circumstances? Because if we have military embedded with the United States, does that not raise questions about how we deliver what we say we're doing? And finally, because the noble Lady Baroness Goldie didn't ask about it, she asked about the defence industrial strategy. She didn't make the plea, which somebody I think needs to make.

When are we going to increase defence expenditure? Because talking about the end of this Parliament or the next Parliament isn't good enough. This is a regional war moving into a global war now, and we can't wait five years. Iran certainly isn't going to.

19:38

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

19:48

Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)

- -

My Lord, the United Kingdom was not expected to take part in not expected to take part in initial strikes, as far as I am aware, on Iran. So why didn't the aware, on Iran. So why didn't the government authorise the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in mid-February, which my noble friend pointed out, when our ally, the USA, had requested the use of those both bases. This meant that the American Air Force were spending 37 hours in the air to actually reach a base in Europe.

And my second point is further to the attack on RAF Akrotiri. As you quite rightly mentioned, a sovereign British base by Hezbollah, obviously the proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. When will the government expel Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom, as it did following the attack by the Russians? The Novichok attack, when we expelled 16 diplomats?

19:49

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, the Foreign Office will no doubt have heard the noble Baroness request around Iranian diplomats. She will also know that the Foreign Office had called in the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador, to express their displeasure with with what was going on. And no doubt they'll have heard what the noble Baroness and many other people have said to them on on the point. And it's a point of difference, I suspect, between myself and the noble Baroness. I thought the Prime Minister was absolutely right not to join in the initial.

The initial offensive from America and Israel on the Saturday. And the reason for that was it was an offensive. We didn't think that was was correct. And that's why we would not allow the use of our bases, both with respect to Fairford and Diego Garcia. She's she's quite right to point out the the the problems that that causes in terms of flights from the United States. But when the United States came with the with the new request, then we then we agreed what was different.

I'll tell you what caused the difference and caused the difference amongst the Middle East nations. They could not believe the indiscriminate way in which Iran retaliated didn't just retaliate against American military bases. They didn't just retaliate against Israel. They launched missile attack after missile attack against numerous Middle Eastern countries who themselves were disbelieving that that had happened. And they then started to say, what are we going to do to protect ourselves? But also, as well as those Middle Eastern countries and their populations, it was put in our armed forces, our citizens, people there in businesses from Britain and tourists and so on.

And that's why in the self-defence of our friends and allies in the region and the self-defence of ourselves, we thought the situation was different. And it gave us a legal basis on which we could support the action and allow the use of our bases, and that's the decision the government made. Others may disagree with it. I suspect the vast majority of people in our country actually think it is the right thing to do, to act in a way which promotes self-defence rather than the offensive action which took place on the Saturday.

19:52

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Labour)

- -

Crown Courts can I join with >> Crown Courts can I join with other members of the noble Lords here in congratulating the the troops who are involved now in this troops who are involved now in this in this action? And I'd also like to commend the government for what it has done up to now, because a lot of criticism has been has been levelled at them, a lot of it and unjustified as well. But is this crisis not a wake up call for all of us in this in this House, and that it underlines what the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference just a few days ago, when he said, this time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only rearming when disaster is upon them.

This time it must be different because all the warning signs are there. So for all the political parties in this country, we need actually now to galvanise ourselves in the light of what we are seeing at the present moment and do something about it for the future.

19:53

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, can I join again with Lord Robertson in the tribute to our Robertson in the tribute to our armed forces? And can I also thank him for the points he made about the way in which the government has acted and the various policy decisions that the government have made. I know it's been a long standing demand of of my noble friend who led the government review with the SDR, which laid out some of the challenges which we faced, but some of the investments which the government will need to consider, I'm sure the Prime Minister will read his letter with interest.

He made those various comments at Munich, and we look forward to seeing how the government will turn 3%. Ambition in the next Parliament should economic conditions allow, how we can turn that into into action and similarly with the commitment to 2035 with respect to 5% as well, and perhaps the noble Lord will share the response from the Prime Minister when he receives it.

19:54

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

Baroness Bennett Baroness Penn. >> Baroness Bennett Baroness Penn. >> My Lords, reflecting what the noble Lords Minister said and the statement says, Iran has lashed out statement says, Iran has lashed out with dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless sites, reckless strikes. That is clearly an accurate description and I join the frontbenchers and others in offering thanks to the service personnel, the British service personnel who are seeking to protect threatened communities, ships and other sites at this moment. At the same time, of course, we are seeing extensive and extremely heavy strikes by America on Iran, particularly in built up areas.

Now, the Mines Advisory Group says that when explosive weapons are used in populated areas, 90% of the casualties are civilians. That results not just, of course, in physical trauma, but also a great deal of mental trauma. We've seen, and today has come out the reports about Ninab, the school, the elementary school where 175, mostly small children were killed by a Tomahawk strike, which it now appears came from the US. So is the government speaking to the US about minimising the civilian damage, about following international law, particularly thinking of the fact that many of the civilians under these strikes will be people who have been seeking to overturn the Iranian regime.

19:55

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

That's a very important question. Of course, we speak to the United States. They we the permissions States. They we the permissions we've given are very clear. Nobody wants to see civilian casualties. And we talked to the Americans about the need for very careful targeting and to ensure that any potential impact on civilians is minimised. But it's very important point that the noble Baroness makes and something we would all share, I'm sure. All my Lords, I.

19:56

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

Pay tribute. House have done to His Majesty's armed forces. As a father of a soldier, I'm acutely aware, particularly of the families that Akrotiri in Cyprus and what they're going through at the moment. I'm sure they're being well supported by chaplains that serve in the armed forces, just as many of the communities in the Gulf will be being supported by Anglican and other other denomination chaplains serving in the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. And I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for the briefing that was given yesterday at the Ministry of Defence.

I found that immensely helpful, and it did give me assurance of the preparedness that had gone in over the last few weeks. But when we all focus on one conflict, we tend to take our eye off the ball of other conflicts. And I'm very worried about what is now happening in Ukraine. And I'm sure we're still as committed to supporting the people of Ukraine, but also concerns elsewhere. And I'm hearing increasing reports of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Six Palestinians were killed by settler militia armed by the IDF in the first week of the war with Iran in. Two brothers were killed a week last Monday, and three others were injured simply because they were trying to protect their olive groves. So settlers are taking the advantage to act with impunity under the cover of this war. So I ask, what is His Majesty's Government doing to ensure that other places where we have a strategic interest or we have a deep concern for the people of those places, that we are not taking the eye off the ball there.

And particularly in the West Bank, where this further violence is reducing yet more the possibility of a two state solution.

19:58

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, first of all, can I thank thank him for the the point about the briefing. And we will have more the briefing. And we will have more briefings as well. And we try to have as many as we can to, to, for people to keep up to date with the people to keep up to date with the MoD thinking. And then they will have to make their own mind up about where they go and what they think about that. Can I also join him in recognising the support that chaplains give and various other faith leaders give to the support for for people in conflict, as well as the armed forces? I think it's a very important point to make.

He also makes a very important point. Of course, our focus also remains on Ukraine. Visits for the MoD are also going into very into the high north in the not too distant future. So all of that is going on. But he also makes the point. And just let me say that, of course, our focus at the moment with respect to the Middle East is on Iran, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are continuing issues with respect to Gaza, with respect to the West Bank.

And tomorrow, I'm seeing the the Lebanese ambassador to talk to him about some of the issues that are occurring with Israel and South and the south of Lebanon and Hezbollah. So it's quite right to say that, and we'll continue to work with others to ensure that these other conflicts, these other problems, whilst they may not be getting in the headlines, are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forgotten in the fact that they need to be resolved as quickly as possible. As well. As the Minister said earlier,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the Minister said earlier, the legal basis for this intervention is collective self-defence of our allies in the self-defence of our allies in the Gulf. And the government's position is that under collective self-defence we may only target self-defence we may only target missiles and drones launched by Iran and the missile facilities. However, the law of armed conflict, However, the law of armed conflict, once an armed conflict has begun, allows the targeting of all military objectives, which includes, at a minimum, all military personnel and all weapons.

The UAE has now endured 250 ballistic missiles and 1500 drone attacks. Is the government really suggesting that a state under such an attack should respond by targeting weapons used against it, but not, or any other lawful military objectives, including any weapons such as, for example, an Iranian fighter jet. The government has chosen to set

20:00

Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)

- -

out its targeting policy in this conflict in very legal terms. Isn't conflict in very legal terms. Isn't the government now concerned that unless that statement from last week is updated and clarified, we week is updated and clarified, we risk conveying the impression to allies and enemies that are legal? allies and enemies that are legal? Approach to targeting is now uniquely benevolent?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

uniquely benevolent? Well, it's all I can say to the noble Lord. When the UAE were at the briefing that we had and the discussion that we had in the Mod earlier and. The the work that we're doing with them is about us

20:01

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

working with them, as well as other allies to defend the UAE from allies to defend the UAE from attack. And we've seen that happen, and they've been very satisfied with that way in which we've with that way in which we've defended them against that missile attack as of other Middle East attack as of other Middle East states, some in here will know the, states, some in here will know the, the, the, the the difficulty sometimes of ensuring that you can get the permissions that you need in order to be able to do that.

But we are working really hard and the cooperation of all of those Middle East allies are ensuring that we can protect as many of them as we can, including the UAE. But the legal basis on which we operate, and I think I know it's not everybody here agrees, but the legal basis to actually make a differentiation between taking offensive action and taking action, which is in our self-defence and the defence of those in the region, is actually something that the Middle East countries themselves support because they're worried about the about what's happening, extending and developing in a way which becomes uncontrollable.

And they're worried about that sort of situation as well. So all I'm saying is we're taking prudent, sensible and proportionate action in order to deliver the self-defence that we all want. I'm most grateful to.

20:02

Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)

- -

The noble Lord, the Minister. Minister. If it only took six days for HMS Dragon to get ready, why was readiness not instructed on or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was readiness not instructed on or after the 11th of February? Well, as soon as we had no request from the region for a type 45 destroyer, we. We made our own

20:03

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

sovereign decision on the basis of the intelligence and the threat that we perceived to get a Type 45 that we perceived to get a Type 45 there as soon as we could. And that's why, as I say, the the people work around the clock in people work around the clock in order to deliver that type 45 that other assets were sent both before other assets were sent both before and during and will continue to be sent to deliver the defensive effect that that we want.

That effect that that we want. That needs to be enhanced by the Type 45. Our assessment is that needed to go, and we made the decision last week to send it and to make it ready as soon as possible.

20:03

Baroness Curran (Labour)

- -

Baroness Curran May I be permitted, my noble Lord, to associate myself with the gratitude and thanks to the armed services that has been expressed by all members of this House, can I directly ask my noble friend, the directly ask my noble friend, the Minister, if he agrees with me that the British people understand that the British people understand that the responsibility of the British government and the Prime Minister is primarily to protect British interests. But does my noble friend also appreciate that British people are worried at the moment? They are worried about the military consequences and they're worried about the economic consequences.

So can I ask the British, the Minister and the government that do they have a clear plan to communicate and reassure the British people that the government has a steady plan to protect British interests and to protect the military and economic interests of the British people going forward.

20:04

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well. the British government is operating and the decisions that we're taking. The no. Baroness Nye is quite right. We we take the decisions we take in the interests of the British people, both here and abroad, and obviously our armed forces. We have a clear plan to do that. That's why we have the defensive, the the the desire to only operate in self-defence because we don't want to escalate the situation. We're calling for de-escalation. And and therefore, that's the way to do it.

We're also considering some of the the, the, the economic impacts as well and how we might mitigate them. But I say to, to, to, to the the noble Baroness and is a point I often make when you take action that has consequences. When you don't take action, that also has consequences. And so sometimes a decision that you make is based on, on your best assessment of how to deal with a particular situation. Our assessment was not agreed by everyone, but the offensive action on the Saturday was not the right time to, to, to, to participate with the Americans and the Israelis.

But when the indiscriminate retaliation happened from Iran with the attacks on numerous states across the region and their requests to us from them, the further requests from the US was a reasonable request for the for us to allow them to use the basis to provide that self-defence. That is so necessary.

20:06

Lord Redwood (Conservative)

- -

I thank the Minister for his >> I thank the Minister for his support for our Armed Forces has this action, which relies to some this action, which relies to some extent on our aircraft operating out of. Diego Garcia persuaded the government that it would be a very government that it would be a very bad idea to give the freehold of this space to a friend of China and to take the risks with a non-nuclear power. And is that why they've paused that rather bad idea, or is it that the United States has warned them that they will not consent to vary the treaty which set up the base in the first place?

20:06

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The dealing with a couple of the points, the noble, the first the first point I would would make to first point I would would make to the noble Lord is the fact that actually if you talk about Mauritius, the biggest friend they've got is India rather than China. And the the Indians are as worried about the the influence of China in much of that region. And so I, I just say that as a counterpoint to the point about China, the, the, the, the concern that India has and the fact that Mauritius was close to India as, as anybody is, I think the the discussions continue around the Diego Garcia Treaty, and we'll see where that takes us.

But the important thing is that Diego Garcia is and always and will be an important strategic asset for us. The debate that the noble Lord and I would have is how we secure that security of that base for us to to done.

20:07

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, may I say at the >> My Lords, may I say at the outset that I hold the the noble or the Minister in great regard, and I the Minister in great regard, and I see him in the tradition of great Labour patriots, and his Secretary of State. Colleague. Right. Hon John Healy, in the same tradition as James Callaghan, for instance. But can I take him back to the very interesting question that the noble Lord Verdirame made, the question he put.

Is it not time at this juncture to step back and look at the cumulative damage to the reputation of the United Kingdom as a reliable and trustworthy ally to our most powerful friend, the United States. When even Tony Blair has criticised the government's conduct over this this conflict, given that this narrow interpretation of international law as between defensive and offensive capabilities has been applied erroneously, in my opinion, if it was 1939 on that same those same parameters, we would not have come to the aid of Poland because we the UK population was not under a direct threat.

The point is surely that the Iranian Islamic Republic has been an ongoing threat to British, US, Israeli and other citizens for 47 years. And on that basis we. We should have been a more loyal and trustworthy supporter of the United States because at the end of the day, them and the Israelis are on the front line of a civilised civilizational fight, which we will all be involved with very soon if we're not careful.

20:09

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Well, can I thank the Lord for the comparison with James Callaghan? So, you know, the first mover, I appreciate that, but but the serious point is we're all patriots in here. You know, I, I wouldn't question anybody's patriotism in this chamber. We all want the best for our country. We all support our armed forces and wish to ensure that the UK remains as powerful and as significant on the world stage as it always has been. There will be points of difference with that.

I would say to the noble Lord that the UK's. That the UK is still hugely regarded across the world. It's still of huge significance to large numbers of countries who want the UK to stand with them, not always with regiments of troops or 50 aircraft or 40 tanks, but the fact that the UK will often stand with countries across the world gives those countries a sense of legitimacy, confidence and purpose about what it is that they're doing. And I think we should remind ourselves of that sometimes and be proud of that, because I am and I know the noble Lord Wood in answer to his question, there is no doubt from the government, the government's perspective that US and the United States.

It is imperative for our security and for the security of the values that we stand for, that we retain, that closeness of that relationship, and we maintain that that is the government's policy, and that is what does that mean sometimes that there aren't difficulties? Of course there are. And the noble Lord, as well as me, could recount historical examples of where there have been very serious problems between the United States and the United Kingdom. But that hasn't altered the fact that fundamentally, our two countries are united in in standing for freedom, democracy, and the rights and human rights.

And I think if I look at it, there is considerable cooperation still goes on between the United States and the UK. Intelligence sharing still goes on. There are still sorts of military to military discussions all of the time. And notwithstanding some of the things that we read, the worst thing I think we can do, and I refuse to do it, is to actually say the president said this. The president said that he's the president of the United States. We will do all we can to work with him to deliver common objectives, because at the end of the day, any division between the United States and the United Kingdom notwithstanding, sometimes there will be policy differences, as there was a week or two ago.

The only people that are going from that are our adversaries,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we should not allow them to experience that at all. Pause just. For a moment for people to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For a moment for people to be Report Report of Report of the Report of the Crime Report of the Crime and Report of the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.

20:12

Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill - report stage

I Lord Oates. I beg to move the further consideration of the bill further consideration of the bill be made on report. >> The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. amendment 393 Baroness Doocey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Apologies. Stop laughing, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies. Stop laughing, my Lords. Amendments 393 seeks to protect the operational independence of chief constables by independence of chief constables by introducing vital safeguards at the point of suspension, the moment when they are most vulnerable to when they are most vulnerable to political pressure in practice. In committee, I tabled an amendment addressing a later stage of the

20:13

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

formal dismissal process. But after listening to police representatives,

20:13

Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill - report stage

listening to police representatives, it's clear that the real problem arises much earlier. The unilateral

20:13

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

arises much earlier. The unilateral power of suspension currently exercised by police and crime commissioners without any duty to commissioners without any duty to seek independent input, is a significant driver of the leadership instability we see today, leadership instability we see today, with nearly 1 in 5 forces losing their chief constable every year. Under the current framework, the Independent Inspectorate must be consulted before a chief is formally removed. Yet suspension often pre-empts this and can be triggered on relatively vague grounds, simply that a chief constable's continued presence may be detrimental to the efficiency or effectiveness of the force.

In practice, this suspension loophole means the mere threat of suspension is often enough to force a chief to resign just to avoid a very public confrontation. This leadership term has real world consequences. In Devon and Cornwall, the disruption of having three constables in 18 months led to service shortfalls and diminished morale. The government's own recent White Paper admits that the PCC model has often not facilitated effective management, and acknowledges tensions in the 1 to 1 relationship, which ultimately harm communities.

My amendment proposes two modest but critical adjustments. First, it requires the PCC to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that continued service poses a serious risk to efficiency or to public confidence, replacing the current vague thresholds. Secondly, it extends the duty to consult HMRC FRS at this earlier stage, creating consistency between the decision to suspend and the decision to remove. My Lords. This is also about a wider leadership crisis. In several recent rounds there have been few and even no applicants for Chief Constable roles.

Potential candidates are deterred because they fear being removed for reasons of political convenience rather than genuine failure. We on these benches believe that no single individual, whether a PCC, a mayor or indeed the Home Secretary, should wield unilateral power over a chief constable's career. If the government proceeds with plans to restore the Home Secretary's powers of dismissal, these independent safeguards must be the baseline to prevent a drift towards political control. This amendment restores balance. It does not prevent swift action where a chief presides over grave failures or faces credible allegations of serious misconduct.

But it does ensure that any such reckoning is fair, proportionate and independently informed. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opposed after clause 167 insert the new clause set out on the Marshalled List entitled Suspension Marshalled List entitled Suspension

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Chief Constable's. I thank the noble Baroness Brady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness Brady Ducey for this amendment, and I believe it is a measured proposal that would perhaps simply require a

20:16

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Police and Crime Commissioner before suspending a Chief Constable to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so and to consult His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. Chief Constable's occupy one of the most demanding leadership roles in public life. They are responsible for operational policing for thousands of officers and staff, and for maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. Decisions to suspend them are therefore the utmost seriousness, not only for the individual concerned, but also for the stability and effectiveness of the force that they lead.

Recent events remind us of why clarity in these processes processes, matters. The policing of the Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture generated significant public and political debate about policing decisions and leadership accountability. In that context, the actions and judgements of Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Craig Guildford have been the subject of rightful scrutiny and commentary. So, my Lords, there is potential concern with the necessity of this, but I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to what the noble Lord the Minister has to offer on this. I'm grateful to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey for her amendments, and I'll just die at the outset. She has a point. And the process by which police and crime commissioners may suspend the Chief Constable should be something to be looked at. The noble Baroness has suggested that His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services should be involved in this process. As I involved in this process. As I discussed the Committee stage, the inspectorate is already has such a role when it comes to the enforcement of resignations or retirements of chief constables via the Police Regulations 2003.

I am pleased, though, to be able to tell the noble Baroness that the government agrees with the suggestion that she has made. Indeed, if your Lordships could look at paragraph 134. I don't wish to surprise the noble Lady, and I hope that she can. She can recover from that shock. But if she looks at paragraph 134 of the white paper from local to national. A new model for policing, which we published on January the 26th. It says, and I quote from the document, we will reform the process for the appointment and suspension and dismissal of chief constables to introduce greater fairness, transparency and balance into the process.

This will include introducing a requirement for mayors and policing crime boards to seek the views of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary before taking any decision. Action. Sorry to suspend the Chief Constable, I can confirm we intend to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, but I say to the noble Lady that we want

20:19

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

to do that as part of the wider police reform package, so it's not a piecemeal approach. There will be a piecemeal approach. There will be a wider police reform follow through on the White Paper as soon through on the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. It's a very ambitious program and I want to make sure that we deal with it not just in isolation, but I hope that reassurance on the record is there for her, and she will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

push her amendment on that basis. I'm told it's a victory by my noble and learned Lord Wood. I thank the Minister for that confirmation, and I'm very pleased that it's not just when some chief

20:20

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

constable's going to be sacked, but it's actually at the stage when I have asked for in my speech, have asked for in my speech, because I think that is the key point. It if they can be suspended and that doesn't require consultation with anyone, the fact consultation with anyone, the fact is they have. Practically all of them have just taken the view that them have just taken the view that they don't want a big public outing. So they have just resigned anyway.

And that is what I'm trying to stop. But I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, who has said to me that he's going to do exactly what I've asked for. Can you write that down? I am delighted, and I will therefore withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it the noble Ladies wish to withdraw the amendment? Is it your Lordships president amendment be Lordships president amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. We come to amendment 393A Baroness O'Loan not moved. Amendment 3393B Lord Pannick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I hope the Minister will give me a satisfactory response in relation to this group,

20:21

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

response in relation to this group, as the Minister just gave to the noble Lady. Baroness Doocey amendments 393B to E in this group are in my name and they address clauses one six, 8 to 1 seven. One of the bill which create a A will create a presumption of anonymity for an authorised firearms officer who is charged with an offence in relation to the use of a weapon in the exercise of his or her functions, and that presumption will apply unless and until that defendant is convicted of the criminal offence.

I'm very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black of Brentwood and to the noble Lady Baroness Cash for adding their names to these amendments. Unfortunately, Lord Black and Baroness Cash cannot be here tonight. They send their apologies. We will all miss their contributions as they made powerful speeches on this subject at Committee stage. Can I also record my gratitude to Emma Snell of Justice and to Sebastian Couto of the News Media Association for their very helpful briefings.

What? Amendment 393B would do is replace this presumption of anonymity in the bill with a power for the court to grant anonymity where it considers it is necessary to protect against a real risk to the safety of the firearms officer or another person, such as a member of the officer's family, or to prevent harm to the public interest having regard to proportionality and to the principle of open justice. And that, in essence, is the common law position which applies now.

I do recognise the need for courts to have this power in appropriate cases. That is a power to grant anonymity, but I think it would be a mistake to legislate for a statutory presumption, and that is because the criminal courts have long proceeded, and rightly so, on the basis that open justice is a core principle of our legal system. It is a core principle because it is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, restrictions on reporting what goes on in our courts always need to be justified.

And in the context addressed by clauses clause 168. There are especially strong reasons for upholding open justice. We are here typically concerned with the actions of a firearms officer acting on behalf of the state, whose use of a weapon has killed another human being, and that event will have led the CPS to bring a criminal prosecution. Which means that the CPS believes that two criteria are satisfied. First, that on the available evidence, the court is more likely than not to convict and second, that it is in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

Of course, the prosecution must prove its case, but in this context, the interests of open justice are very important in the public interest, the public, and not just the family and the friends of the deceased, surely have a strong interest in knowing what is alleged. Against whom. Open justice, I suggest, is of particular importance at this time. When public confidence in our police force is low, perhaps lower than ever before, a presumption that the press cannot fully report a murder trial will, I fear, inevitably cause further damage to public confidence.

I do accept that there may there will be cases where open justice should give way to the need to protect the defendant and his or her family, and the court must have power to provide protection by requiring anonymity. But that must be because of information which provides a reasoned basis for concern that such protection is required in the particular circumstances of the case. I also emphasise that clause 168 would confer special protection on firearms officers. The government does not suggest that other police officers or prison officers, whose conduct may lead to the serious injury or death of another person, should enjoy this presumption of anonymity, and rightly so.

So I say that to confer this unique protection for firearms officers is unnecessary, because a discretion for the court suffices. And it's wrong in principle, because this is a context where the interests of open justice are at their strongest at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Carter of Hazelmere, who I'm very pleased is in his place, suggested that firearms officers might be deterred from taking up such posts if there's no presumption of anonymity. That does seem to me, with great respect, a weak argument when no other police officer enjoys such a presumption.

And when clause 168 does not guarantee anonymity, and when our amendments would allow anonymity in appropriate cases, and when a firearms officer is far more likely to be concerned about the risk of prosecution than about the question of anonymity. Also at Committee stage, my other noble friend, I don't have very many, but my other noble friend, Lord Hogan-Howe, who I'm also very pleased, is in his place tonight. Emphasise what a difficult and important job is done by firearms officers and I recognise that I agree with the noble Lord and that should be carefully borne in mind when decisions are taken in the public interest on whether to prosecute.

But once a prosecution is brought, no defendant should enjoy a special presumption of anonymity. My noble friend, Lord Hogan-Howe also drew attention to the fact that there are not many of these cases, no doubt true, but I would suggest that adds nothing to the debate on how such cases should be treated when a prosecution is brought at Committee stage. The noble Lady, the Minister Baroness Levitt, emphasised that firearms officers can face serious death threats and intimidation.

Very regrettable, but no doubt true. My answer is so can other police officers and if there is information suggesting such circumstances or the risk of such circumstances, our amendments allow the judge to protect anonymity. That is the right way to ensure both protection and open justice. The other amendments that I've tabled, 393C to D, would ensure that the criteria for courts imposing restrictions are the same. After conviction and pending an appeal and amendments, 393E to F would ensure that courts have flexible powers to vary or revoke reporting restrictions or anonymity orders in the light of any changes.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed to clause 168, page 219, line 13 leave out subsections three and four and insert the words on the Marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. My Lords, I. I rise to talk or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. I rise to talk or speak to just two amendments three, speak to just two amendments three, nine, three B and 394. I want to address the 39B first, which is obviously the amendment that Lord Pannick has just introduced, which is about anonymity. It won't be surprised to hear that perhaps I

20:30

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

don't agree with them, but I did share with him a few days ago that I actually have some sympathy with I actually have some sympathy with the general position. So I do believe that police officers should be accountable, and one of the main ways to be accountable is to be identifiable, which is why there were numbers. They know where the names. It's really important. And I names. It's really important. And I therefore hesitate before I argue for anonymity. I'm not, you know, just saying it's a black and white question.

However, on balance for me, I do agree with the government's proposal, which is to provide anonymity for firearms officers where, well, first of all, the assumption is changed from the present, i.e. that the assumption is that there will be anonymity unless the judge decides they won't, which is a complete reversal of today. Lord Pannick prefers that it was as it is today, but to put it in statute rather than common law, the reason that I think it's it's vitally important is that and I'm going to go on into three, nine, four to say more about the this group of special people that I think we rely on.

But I think it's really important because in the case of. We've heard already about Sergeant Blake and the Chris Kaba case, the man that he shot, there was clear information before the court that, of course, Mr. Kaba was a member of an organised crime group. In fact, Mr. Kaba was wanted for two firearms offences. So a reasonable suspicion that he and others who were linked to him had firearms access. That will not always be the case. But despite that, the judge in the case decided to raise the anonymity that had been possible.

I've met Sergeant Blake a few months ago. The effect on his life was significant and his family because having been named, of course it can't be retracted, which is why it's so important to get it right at the beginning, which is I prefer the government's position because it could be argued out, but once argued in everybody's Named, and the consequences flow from that. The Sergeant Blake was actually incredibly, in my view, understanding of what happened. He wasn't overly critical of anyone at all.

But I think on our behalf, you know, we as Parliament have got to consider him as one example, but there have been others. So I prefer the government's position, and I think it's defensible. And finally, just I made a mistake, actually, when I was speaking about this at Committee stage, Lord Phillips of my travels corrected me. It was quite right. I said that it was a small case. It wasn't about being small issue, but it was about a small number of people. That's the point I miss.

I miss applied myself. I realise it's an important issue. It's also an important issue that these officers get supported. And in my view, this this protection, which can be argued out, is more important than the general principle in on this occasion, and I take Lord Pannick point that there are other officers who have come under threat, who don't carry firearms. They can also apply for anonymity. But in this case, if you're shooting someone dead, I would argue it raises the threat and the risk level, and I prefer the government's calculation.

So I support the government and I can't support Lord Paddick on 394. This is about trying to get a higher bar before officers are prosecuted. Now, not too many officers have been prosecuted over the years, and every one of them who's been charged has been found not guilty. Now, some lawyers have said, therefore the system works. Why do you worry? Well, the trouble is it sometimes takes 3 to 5 years for that to that outcome to arrive, during which time the officers are under incredible pressure and and their family.

So it does matter who gets charged. And I think that we've got to consider this special group of people. This is a group of people. There's probably about 3500 officers out of the 145,000 who can carry a firearm, they deploy to around 17,000 incidents a year. And that's in, excuse me, in 2025 in England and Wales, they actually shot they discharged their weapon on around 5 to 10 operations and they hit less people. And not everyone who was hit died.

My broad point is they are not a trigger happy group. There is no evidence that they regularly go out and shoot people when it happens. It's a serious issue and of course there should be some accountability about that, but we rely on them as volunteers. They don't get paid no more and if they ever turn, change their mind, which I think was Lord Chartres point, we have no way to force them to do it. You can't order an officer to carry a firearm in our present regime.

We're not America. That's a condition of service. on them an awful lot. And I think we prey on their goodwill quite a lot to I don't want to address the legal issue in terms of these officers, but I do want to try and just bring our attention to the policy issue involved. I think we all have to bear in mind there's probably three broad groups of firearms operations. Something happens in front of an officer or they get deployed quickly. It's a planned operation and they're going to arrest somebody in their home.

Or alternatively, it's a crime in progress. It all comes down to the same thing in that second, in which you've got to make a decision. You remain a human being. You've got to decide whether you're going to shoot or not. And on the whole, the evidence shows that they get it right. Should they kill someone or or hurt them very seriously? The whole system, the whole panoply of the state depends on them. Why do you do that? That's not the problem for me.

I do remark because Lord Hailsham raised the issue about other professions, and I don't know how many surgeons there are in the room, but when a surgeon makes a mistake and slashes an artery, the whole world doesn't descend and say, why did you do that? But they do. When a firearms officer shoots and I realise there is some distinction, but the outcome is the same. But the firearms officer is going to come under severe scrutiny during that period. And I think we've got to consider they remain a human being who did the best that day.

They didn't go to work to try and kill someone. They went to work to try and do the job that we asked them to do on our behalf. And in an unarmed society with an unarmed police force. I do think they're a special group. I think my final point would have come towards the end is just to say that I've met most of the officers who, during the last few years have been charged, including one called Anthony Long. Anthony long was under inquiry for 11 years before he was cleared by a Crown Court jury.

Each one I've met who's been in this position have shown great humility in my view, the sort of people you'd want to give a gun. It's not just kind of shoot straight, it's the judgement they apply at that time. You want a sensible, mature people, despite the fact they've all been under inquiry for so long. They're incredibly understanding of why they were in that position. They understood they had to be inquiry. They were very understanding of all the different processes. And I think that group of people deserve our honour as well as their own.

And I'm afraid at the moment, I think the system, not individual, is treating them badly, and I think somebody has to speak for them, which is why these amendments for me have so much power. I realise there are big legal issues that have got to be considered and no one's immune to that. But my passion has been to try and support them in what I think is a very difficult job. They show evidence, they're doing it properly, and we've got no evidence over the last 40 years that they did it badly.

There is no conviction of an officer. And my final point is it seems as though on the route to getting into a court, everybody makes a judgement that this is a criminal charge. You know, the investigation sometimes it was the old police did it. Now IOPC CPS make a decision and then you put it before a jury and some common sense gets applied to me. And the benefit of a jury is that we do, you know, we have the judgement of our peers.

And when they applied their judgement, they conclude that this group of officers are generally doing it right. And I wonder why the system can't do more for them, the firearms officers, to encourage them to carry on doing it and on our behalf to take these very difficult decisions and not at that second, to worry about the consequences over the next few years. We can't sustain that. I don't think they should. And that's my reason for arguing for these two amendments.

20:39

Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)

- -

My Lord, sir. >> I've tabled amendment 403 in this group, the group that we're we're talking about raises the issue whether authorised firearms issue whether authorised firearms officers deserve any special protection, if they are or may be prosecuted for their conduct or if they're convicted. Some would say they're not so deserving because it would not be giving equal treatment to all others, myself included, believe they most certainly do need some additional protection, whether that's a presumption of anonymity, a higher threshold before a prosecution can be brought, a lesser penalty if they're convicted, or a combination of all three.

These are amongst the bravest people in society. They volunteer for the job so as to protect the public, even though it means exposing themselves to high risk of death or injury. They're motivated by the highest ideals and deserve special consideration because of it. They are emphatically not in the same position as ordinary members of the public who injure or kill others with a firearm. So I support the statutory presumption of anonymity, which the government commendably proposed, and I do oppose.

Amendment 393 B, which imposes conditions before there can be anonymity. In fact, I don't think there's a huge difference between the government's clause 168 and the noble and learned Lord Pannick amendment. Whatever the number is, because essentially what we're talking about is what the default position should be and how that whether that can be rebutted in the interests of justice one or either way, the government come down in favour of presumption of anonymity. That's where I come down as well.

But I don't think there's a huge gap for me. It goes without saying that firearms officers and their families are at real risk to their safety because of the extensive publicities publicity that such cases attract, and Parliament should therefore presume that to be the case. However, even if anonymity does not avoid the intense stress, such officers who put their lives on the line for the rest of us have to endure while waiting for trial, which can have taught calls take years to come on.

So I agree with the principle behind amendment 394 that a higher threshold should be set before such a prosecution can take place at all. Whether this should be as high a threshold as requiring the case to be exceptional before there can be a prosecution is a matter for debate, but I agree that the factors set out in subsection five of amendment three nine for the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected in the course of their duties, and the exceptional difficulties of making time sensitive.

Judgements are should always be given particular weight. Where a prosecution is brought, especially if there is no higher threshold for prosecution, then my amendment 403 is designed to mitigate the penalty imposed if certain conditions are met. It is an amendment I tabled at Committee stage, but the debate took place with just ten peers in the House at 1115 at night, so I brought it back at report. It's about whether police firearms officers who use excessive force on the spur of the moment in the honest, honest but mistaken belief that the degree of force was reasonable and who would otherwise be entitled to rely on self defence, should be guilty of murder or manslaughter.

The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords recommended 30 years ago in the Lee Clegg case that in these circumstances, law enforcement officers should not be treated the same as terrorists and other murderers if they use excessive force and should be convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I find that a statement of the obvious. Quoting from the Court of Appeal, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, and I quote, there's one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder.

The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they're terrorists or domestic murders, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of the 30th of September 1990, he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car, driving through an army checkpoint and being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified, we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence he had committed.

However, Lord Lloyd ruled it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law and it was for Parliament to do so. And here we are 30 years later with that opportunity. In rejecting my amendment in committee, the noble Lady, the Minister said that it would create a two tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duty, are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population, but is treating police firearms officers differently from other murderers.

A two tier justice system? Surely not. We're not treating like with like police, firearms officers who go on duty risking their lives to protect us all. And in the words of the noble Lady, the Minister quote, have to make life and death decisions in an instant are emphatically in a very different category from those who kill with an evil motive. The law should therefore treat them differently. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2008 currently fails to do so, since under that section the degree of force used by a police firearms officer is not to be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances, even if the officer honestly believed it was.

If, with the benefit of hindsight, it was judged disproportionate. My Lords, it is not surprising that police officers are being deterred from volunteering for firearms training, and 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 hearings. My amendment amendment would not, as in the Householder's case, result in an officer's acquittal, since I don't think that can be justified in the case of trained firearms officers, there needs to be accountability and a criminal penalty, as the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords said all those years ago, a manslaughter conviction is a far more proportionate penalty than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treating them as mergers. My Lords, I just wanted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just wanted to thoroughly welcome the sensible and proportionate amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord name of the noble and learned Lord panic and others, which I thought panic and others, which I thought he more than ably explained. I was prompted to speak particularly on amendment 393B, because I've just amendment 393B, because I've just read the government's Protecting What Matters action plan. I've got plenty to say on that, but you'll

20:46

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

all be relieved. I'm not going to do that now. But in the the plan, the government readily admits that trust in institutions is in decline and that social cohesion is fraying. And I'm concerned that if clauses one six 8 to 1 seven one go through one six 8 to 1 seven one go through unamended, it could create a problem of further distrust in problem of further distrust in policing, because despite the fact that the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere says there's not a huge gap between the amendment and the government in relation to anonymity or presumed anonymity for for police officers.

Armed police officers. Actually, what the government is proposing is an unprecedented rejection of the principles around open justice. But more importantly for me, press freedom. I'm particularly concerned that the clauses will limit the ability of the press to report in any meaningful way on cases involving the use of lethal force by police officers, replacing the presumption of anonymity should, of course, not leave officers vulnerable or unsafe. But the amendment allows the power to grant anonymity in specific, if specific, risks to safety are there, or if it's in the interests of public if it's in the public's interest to prevent harm.

But I do think that this is a blunt instrument that would set up a privacy regime that would shut the media out from scrutinising the state's exercise of power with guns. And I just can't see how the public will not see that as covering up when the media are going to be denied any meaningful opportunity, even to contest such anonymity, let alone to report. So that's the concern. And I'm sure that the noble Lady, the Minister, will explain it.

Just to finish, it is interesting that the police themselves have recently been asking for greater freedom to release more details in relation to some investigations. I know not in terms of armed police, but I do think that they've police forces have recognised that by suppressing information, it can actually lead to misinformation that can turn nasty. If the public feel that there's been a cover up, that is a move to transparency, to ensure public consent and build trust that I think goes in the right direction.

And I'm just worried that the clauses in the bill, well, not its intention, would be a step back from a duty to have candour and a step back from the state being transparent on something that, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, is when an armed officer representing the state takes another human being's life. And I don't think we should just grant automatic in. In that way,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we at least have to allow to ask questions and scrutinise. Lord German. My name is on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord German. My name is on the series of amendments which are. The noble Lord Lord Pannick has spoken noble Lord Lord Pannick has spoken to, and I'll make a few very brief comments in support of those amendments. But before I do, I'd amendments. But before I do, I'd like to make a few observations about amendment 394. The Lord about amendment 394. The Lord Alderdice hasn't yet spoken to it, and he may be able to answer all the points that I'm going to make,

20:50

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

but I should start by saying that I share, I think, with all noble Lords concern and admiration for Lords concern and admiration for the police generally, and particularly for police officers particularly for police officers who undertake willingly the task of bearing arms on our behalf in bearing arms on our behalf in circumstances which may conceivably lead to serious harm to them, and which calls for difficult judgements to be made, often on very little information and in a split second.

So I entirely understand the concern. I also wonder whether all these amendments are not significantly inspired by the Chris Kaba case and the the officer Martyn Blake as to the decision not to grant him anonymity. I think it's very arguable the judge came to the wrong decision. But of course, we must bear in mind that hard cases make bad law and that there is a danger that from one case, we can then proceed to legislate in a way that overreacts and makes and makes a change which isn't really justified.

But can I deal with the amendment 394 presumption against prosecution? I am concerned about this. It's not. The idea of a presumption against prosecution does not find its way into the criminal law. Very often I was only able to find one, which is the much criticised Overseas Operation Act in 2021, where the then conservative government brought in an offence a limit rather to the prosecution, a legal threshold in relation to overseas acts by officers, by serving officers or, sorry, serving forces rather than police officers, and in certain exceptional circumstances, there wouldn't be there'd be a presumption against there being a prosecution.

After five years that was much criticised. And what I, I struggle with in this in this particular amendment is this, that before any prosecution is brought and the the noble Lady, the Minister will know this better than anyone really in your Lordships' House there has to be a consideration of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, and secondly, whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute. Now, the factors that are referred to in this amendment, for example, at subclause five, in making a decision to which this section applies, a relevant prosecutor must give particular weight to the following matters, and it provides the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers rejected to, in the course of their duties, and the exceptional difficulties of making time sensitive judgements.

Absolutely right. But I would respectfully say those are the very considerations that would be taken into account by the prosecution in the ordinary course of affairs, when deciding whether there is sufficient evidence and whether deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. So what this does is to to put into the criminal law of presumption, which doesn't have a very satisfactory precedent, and place officers in a particular position. I feel we must leave it to the prosecutors to take all these matters into account in deciding whether or not it's appropriate to prosecute.

I should perhaps declare an interest in that. I was a barrister who acted on behalf of the police in one of those few cases where an officer did in fact, unfortunately, kill somebody who was a suspected criminal. The case went all the way to the House of Lords. It's called Ashley versus the Chief Constable of Sussex. And Ashley's relatives were represented by Sir Keir Starmer, as he was not then, whose junior was Lord Hermer, as he was not then. The. The argument involved very much the same issues which.

Which we've discussed during the course of the evening about objective and subjective and mistakes. In fact, what had happened was that a very junior officer, as part of the Armed Response Unit, had thought he'd seen a sudden movement. He opened fire and unfortunately killed Mr. Ashley, and he was prosecuted for murder and acquitted. It was a mistake. And in due course, there was a civil proceedings that followed that. It is difficult. But he he clearly made a mistake.

But the jury had no difficulty in quitting him. And that brings me slightly to the. The amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I understand what's been said over the years in relation to that, but these matters are very much taken into consideration by juries in any event, and self-defence would include all those matters, all the urgency of the situation. And I'm not at the moment convinced, although I will listen carefully to what the. The noble Lady has said that we need to change the law.

I said I didn't like presumptions in the context of the criminal law. I don't like presumptions much anyway. Which brings me to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lord Pannick. What worries me about the presumption is that what rebuts that presumption at the moment, the law provides that a judge decides in the particular circumstances, whether or not it is appropriate to grant anonymity, and he or she will take into account all the factors, including the the risk of some danger to the officer if he or she is named.

And those are entirely proper. But this presumption would mean. I would respectfully suggest that the judge is getting a very strong steer from Parliament, that he should grant. He should grant anonymity unless. And we don't really know what the. Unless is. And granting anonymity runs contrary to the principle of open justice, and although one has considerable sympathy for any officer caught up in this situation, we are. Nobody is above the law, whether their offices or not, and the press have a duty to report cases, particularly cases of this sort, where serious consequences have followed from the action of the state.

We know, I think, that journalists are thinner on the ground than they once were, that they will often have to cover different courts, and I speak with some experience as the chairman of the press regulation body, knowing the pressures that journalists are under, they often have to make representations themselves to judges in all sorts of circumstances as to whether there should be an anonymity order or not, and they will be faced with having to persuade a judge or might be faced who has already been told that there is a presumption of anonymity.

That's quite a hard burden to discharge for a journalist who may or may not have some legal representation, as a result of which it seems to me almost inevitable that all officers will be granted anonymity. Now, if that's what Parliament thinks is appropriate, so be it. But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that presumption will mean anything other than really the automatic anonymity in these circumstances. I think that is a step that should not be taken. And although all these amendments concern a very real issue in a very real concern, open justice and fairness to all seem to me to result in Lord Pannick amendments should be accepted and the other amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rejected. Before sits down. Can you just consider one thing because it makes consider one thing because it makes some very strong points. One of the things that's concerning the officers, of course, is that you're quite right to identify there's quite right to identify there's been relatively few criminal charges over the period of time. The reason why they are not The reason why they are not persuaded by the CPS or whoever's making the decision that they're only taking into account only taking into account sufficiency of evidence and public interest, is that on every occasion they've made a criminal charge, the jury has disagreed with them, which does lead you to wonder what led to that decision making process.

Because all the points you make, which are about, well, all that's considered doesn't survive the test of a jury when it arrives. So that's why this concern now I'm with you. Is this the perfect solution? I'm not a lawyer and I I'm not in a position to judge whether this is the best solution. But it is why this question is getting raised so frequently, not because of the frequency of the cases, but how often they've been cleared in very short term, very short time.

After all the careful consideration by very good lawyers,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but coming to a completely different judgement than that offered by a jury. I think my answer to that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my answer to that is this, that the prosecuting authorities have decided in these cases, for whatever reason, that cases, for whatever reason, that they think it's appropriate to bring the prosecution, to bring the matter before a court where a jury determines what is right. We trust juries. I know it's a contentious issue at the moment, of course, as issue at the moment, of course, as to what extent we trust them and in what circumstances, but in cases of this sort, juries are going to remain whatever happens to the prospective forms.

And in fact, what it shows is that juries are perfectly capable and do regularly take into account all the pressures that face officers in the sort of situation that the noble Lord describes. So I'm content to leave that matter to the prosecution. Decide whether there's a case. Of course, if a judge decides, having heard the prosecution evidence that there isn't a prima facie case, then that case can stop at that stage. But then the matter comes before a jury, and the common sense of 12 citizens decides, almost inevitably, it seems, reflecting all those factors that we've discussed, that in very, very rare circumstances, will it be appropriate to convict an officer? Because precisely the noble Lord says these are rare circumstances.

Often the officers haven't discharged a gun in anger before. We're not talking about Los Angeles or New York or anything like that, so that I'm content with the situation, and they are helped by that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to speak very briefly. I should declare an interest as a paid advisor to the Metropolitan Police, although I have not Police, although I have not discussed with the police this particular issue, I. I came this particular issue, I. I came this evening looking to support the. The noble Lord Lord Pannick panics amendment, but some of the. A couple of things that the noble Lord said have caused me some concern. One is about the principle

21:02

Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)

- -

concern. One is about the principle of open justice. Yes, it is important. Open justice is important to maintain public confidence and open justice requires open examination of the evidence. But in police shooting cases, I'm not sure that it is a requirement to identify the individual officer concerned clearly. What exactly what happened at the At during the incident has to be in open court and openly reported, but not necessarily the identity identity of the officer at that stage.

The second point that the noble Lord made was the noble Lord tried to say that firearms officers didn't have a unique role, but firearms officers do have a unique role in the use of lethal force. They discharge their weapons on the understanding that that is highly likely. If they do that, somebody is going to die because they aim at the largest body mass, and therefore a fatality is the most likely outcome if they discharge their firearm. That is something that no other police officer who is unarmed or a prison officer, I think the noble Lord mentioned would would have to face, and therefore the role of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

firearms officer is unique for those reasons, My Lords, I spoke at committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I spoke at committee on the subject and I spoke with considerable wariness. Given the considerable wariness. Given the strength and distinguished nature of of of the lawyers who were stressing the importance of of open justice and who whose speeches I listened to incredibly carefully. And I think the House owes them a great deal for for coming forward and making the position clear. But my Lords, I, I do worry about the situation of firearms officers in particular.

And I think the point that the noble Lord Lord Paddick made just a few seconds ago is incredibly important. There is a major difference between these individuals who don't pick and choose which, which incidents they attend and which they don't. They don't have the opportunity to take legal advice before they pull the trigger. And if they do pull the trigger, likely outcome is, is death. So I think that is very different from the situation that most police officers would find themselves in.

I think the second point is that we do, as a society, owe them as much presumption that we, the government, therefore, and we as society more generally, will support them in the work that they do. And if they do find themselves in the circumstances that we're discussing this evening, that they their anonymity will be protected until such time as as they are convicted, if that is, what if that is what happens? Because by the time their anonymity has been lifted, it's too late.

And I believe that they need to have that certainty at the outset before they go on any on any missions, before, before they are deployed. My Lords, we ask them to go into harm's way. They face intense physical danger themselves. From what they do. They're only called to the most serious incidents, and they stand the risk of being killed themselves. They also, of course, face the risk of prosecution or other action if the shot that they discharge, if indeed that is the outcome, which is, as we've heard, incredibly unlikely.

But it does happen. And that they face also the full weight of, of, of the law and perhaps disciplinary action. So, my Lords, I do feel that we owe them the support, the limited support of the presumption of anonymity, which could be waived if the situation did, did demand that. My Lords, I think it is a big step indeed to take to go against the presumption of open justice, and I fully recognise that. And a very powerful argument indeed has been put forward there.

But, my Lords, I think there's one other point to consider that I don't think has been really explored this evening. But the obvious conclusion if officers are worried that their names are going to be publicised, should a legal action be brought is that they might hesitate, they might hesitate in their duty, they might hesitate to pull that trigger. And in so doing, someone else, a member of the public may be killed because there's doubt in the minds of those officers.

And I think that is something that we should consider very carefully as well. So

21:07

Viscount Goschen (Conservative)

- -

I did get my sheet with considerable similarities. Apart from the naval Baroness Lane-Fox, from the naval Baroness Lane-Fox, the only non policeman non-lawyer present in the discussion so far. present in the discussion so far. But nonetheless, my Lords, I think there are some points to to bear in mind and I support the approach of the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 394 and to the other amendments in this group. Well, Britain has a very proud and distinctive model of policing by consent. The defining feature of that model is that the overwhelming majority of our police officers do not routinely carry firearms, and when firearms are deployed, it is because the threat is so grave that lethal force may be necessary to protect life. That responsibility falls on a very small and highly trained group of officers, and I do not think it hyperbole to say that police firearms officers are some of the bravest, most dedicated officers in the country.

And according to the latest Home Office statistics, as of the 31st of March 2025, there were 6367 police officers authorised to carry firearms in England and Wales. That

21:08

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

is compared with 6473 the year before, so it's clear that their before, so it's clear that their numbers are shrinking and that is not something we can afford. That is why my amendment introduces a presumption against the prosecution of armed police officers, where they have discharged their firearm. The amendment does this by requiring a prosecutor, when considering bringing charges considering bringing charges against an armed officer, to apply the principle that it should be exceptional to bring a prosecution against that officer.

And this raises the threshold for prosecutions to be instituted. The CPS would have to clear a higher bar to do so, and I want to cast aside some incorrect aspersions. I'm not suggesting that armed police officers should be above the law. I want to be absolutely crystal clear on that. The the higher prosecution threshold introduced by subsection four of my amendment still permits prosecutors to bring charges against officers where there are exceptional circumstances. All it is saying is that there must be an acknowledgement of the unique nature of the circumstances that leads to an officer discharging their weapon, and subsection five also requires prosecutors to give particular weight to the unique demands and exceptional stresses that firearms officers are subjected to, as well as the incredible difficulties of making time sensitive and split second decisions.

And I really do want to impress this on the House. It is impossible to understand the immense pressure facing you when you are tasked with the responsibility of carrying a police firearm. I know I have done it, I carried a firearm for a number of years whilst employed on the counter-terrorist duties, and imagine the toll it takes on you as a person. And to make it worse, you always have that thought in the back of your mind that if you do have to use your weapon, you might be hounded for years by the press, where protesters and even by the police force you so dutifully served, and to face the possibility of being dragged before court for simply doing your job with your name splashed over all the papers is enough to deter anyone.

But we cannot afford for that to happen. All police firearms officers are volunteers. We need these dedicated officers. We rely on them to protect us in this very building. They are outside right this very moment, standing ready to prevent any possible attack. And that is also why I cannot support the amendments in this group from the noble Lord Lord Pannick. As I said at committee, I am firmly supportive of the government's approach of applying a presumption in favour of anonymity. The noble Lord Lord Pannick amendments do not, in my view, substantially alter the status quo, whereby the decision to grant anonymity is at the court's discretion.

My Lords, we all say that we must support the police, but support is not only expressed in words, but it must also be reflected in the structures of law and justice. Those who protect the public in the gravest circumstances, deserve a system that recognises the unique demands placed upon them. And above all, we must ensure that we protect those who protect us. So I have to say to the House that is why, if the noble Lady, the Minister can accept my amendment or I hear warm words, I may well seek to test the opinion of the House.

21:12

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thought Lord Davis was just going to speak on his amendment, going to speak on his amendment, but in fact he was summing up, so I should have spoken first. I hope that's OK. My Lords, we have sympathy with the principles behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Pannick. They would replace the current presumption of anonymity with a more flexible, case by case judicial test based on real risks to safety, the public interest and open justice. These are important safeguards and they align with our long held position.

From these benches. We continue to support a carefully balanced presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who face criminal charges, one that can be rebutted when a court considers identification essential for justice or for maintaining public confidence. Lord Pannick amendments would make anonymity the exception rather than the starting point, and that risks undermining the reassurance that these vital specialists need in these thankfully rare cases where hesitation can cost lives, we believe the balance should rest with a rebuttable presumption.

It offers protection to officers acting in good faith without compromising transparency or creating any sense of special treatment. Just as importantly, it protects their families. And for me, this is an absolutely key issue. Police officers children should not have to face abuse at school or live in fear of vigilante threats or gang reprisals. Our approach suggests a middle way avoiding a chilling effect on recruitment while maintaining public trust through strong judicial oversight. We're less sympathetic to amendment 394.

While armed officers face exceptional pressures, the proposed presumption against prosecution would send a damaging message that they are being judged by more forgiving standards than other citizens, and that is not a principle. We believe that we should endorse. Finally, we understand that the aim of amendment 403, in the name of the noble Lord Carter, is to reassure firearms officers that the law recognises the realities of split second decision making, but we fear it would, in practice create a special homicide defence available only to that group.

We would rather continue to trust judges and juries to apply the existing nuanced law, which already allows for context and proportionality, than to carve out a lesser liability for one profession.

21:14

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

Yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. >> My Lords. This group of amendments illustrates, doesn't it, exactly how sensitive and difficult these cases are, because in some of the amendments, noble Lords are saying that firearms officers should be held to a different standard from the rest of the population. But in the others, it's being argued that even a small additional protection for them and their families is too great a differential in terms of treatment. So against that background, I start with amendments 303 B to F in the name of the noble Lord Lord Pannick I met the noble Lord together with the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black, and the News Media Association.

I thank them all for the interesting and constructive conversation that we had. The government has considered the noble Lords amendments with great care, and we understand an entirely. Support the principle of open justice and freedom of the press. But what is in issue here, my Lords, is trying to find the appropriate balance, and I'm really, really sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord Lord Pannick, whom I admire greatly, that the government firmly believes that there are very real and specific risks firearms officers face from organised crime groups and violent offenders, and that this requires there should be a presumption that only their personal details, but their personal details should be withheld up until such time as they are convicted.

And if they are acquitted, then their identity will remain protected. And in doing so, we recognise that firearms officers who are being prosecuted for discharging their firearm face a unique situation. As the noble Lord Lord Paddick has said, the threats they face before and after the trial are real. Forgive me, and unlike most defendants, if acquitted, are simply able to return to their old lives as innocent people, firearms officers and their families have targets on their back, even if they're cleared of any wrongdoing.

So this special set of circumstances requires a tailored response, and we believe that the government's proposals achieve the correct balance. Those who are opposed to establishing a presumption of anonymity until conviction have twin concerns. First, that there is insufficient evidence that this is necessary, and secondly, that it represents the thin end of the wedge. I want to deal very briefly with both each argument in turn. First, the evidence that this is needed. My Lords, there's no doubt that the threat faced by firearms officers is not theoretical.

Theoretical. There are very real risks, as I set out at Committee stage and will not repeat in detail, firearms officers can face very serious death threats and other forms of intimidation, which also extend to their families as evidence for the need. There is real concern that the revelation of the identity of police officers who are being prosecuted is having a very negative effect on recruitment and retention of these essential officers, and I'm not sure they're exactly the same statistics that the noble Lord Wood Davis has, but certainly those from the Armed Policing, Attrition and retention document records that since 2019, there has been a loss of 583 armed officers or an 8.8% reduction.

This is a very real concern. What is important is that this measure does not force the courts to issue an anonymity order. It will not cause secret trials. Judges must still consider the interests of justice. They have an active duty to uphold open justice. And even if no party challenges the anonymity, they still must, in considering the interests of justice, assess whether a reporting direction is necessary and proportionate, and even where anonymity is granted, the proceedings will remain public and the evidence will be tested in open court.

And the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley Buckley, I think, is. It is afraid under a misapprehension about what this involves. The only restriction is removing the identity. So they'll be referred throughout all proceedings as officer A. Everything else will be reported, and in the event that they are convicted, anonymity will be rescinded and their identity will become known. A further concern has been the ability of the media to challenge the making of such an order. The government absolutely understands the point and we offer the following reassurances.

First, by virtue of criminal procedure rule 6.2 courts must actively invite media representations whenever anonymity or reporting restrictions are under consideration, and the judge must create the opportunity for scrutiny. Second, Hmcts has delivered a package of reforms to strengthen media access and support open justice in criminal courts. And as part of this reform, every criminal court now has a new circulation list called the Reporting Restriction Application Notice List. This list includes contacts from the media distribution list, who specifically agreed to have their details shared with applicants for advance notice.

They will be added as mandatory contacts to all reporting restriction application notice lists held by criminal courts to ensure service on the members and in addition, Hmcts has established a media engagement group to improve processes to better serve media professionals in criminal courts. My Lords, in addition. Thirdly, the law grants the media the right to appeal any decision to make a reporting direction or an anonymity order to the Court of Appeal. But here is one of the most important points.

If a judge refuses to make an anonymity order, the prosecution and the defendant have no right of appeal. And that is one of the reasons that the government has decided that the starting point should be that there is a presumption that anonymity is granted. Would this be the thin end of the wedge? Will these are unique circumstances. The number of trials is tiny. In the last ten years, there have been two criminal trials for murder or manslaughter as a result of a fatal police shooting.

By way of comparison, there have been 13 fatal police shootings since 2019 to 20. My Lords clauses 168171 have been carefully drafted to strike a lawful and proportionate balance between fundamental rights and the need to protect our firearms officers and their families. I now turn to amendment 394 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, spoken to powerfully also by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe. It's one of two amendments, which of course takes very much the opposite view to the view advanced by the noble Lord Pannick.

And whilst once again we acknowledge the importance of firearms officers and the debt that we owe them, the government is unable to support this amendment. For these reasons, it would fundamentally alter the basis upon which prosecutorial decisions are taken by introducing a statutory presumption against prosecution for a particular group of citizens who in this case happen to be police officers. This would without doubt create a two tier approach to prosecutions in the criminal justice system. All public prosecutorial decisions, as we've heard a great deal this evening, are made in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors, which has statutory force.

Its two stage test has stood the test of time. The noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe suggests that the CPS is getting the decisions wrong because of the number of acquittals. But, my Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that rather misses the point. The CPS test is not to decide whether they prosecute somebody who is guilty. If they knew they were guilty. We don't need the jury. The test is whether there's a realistic prospect of conviction. That is an exercise of judgement as to whether it's more likely or not that there will be a conviction, and if so, and if the public interest stage is satisfied, then the case is put before a jury who decides whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they actually are or actually are not guilty. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Anyway, I understand the distinction she makes, I accept it. I think the concern for the police officers involved, and it's happened over 20, 30 years, is that on every occasion, the decision has on every occasion, the decision has been made. Suppose the jury is concerned, it's been wrong and it's left the officers believing sometimes that the way that the CPS have discharged their problem with a public outcry about the shooting from some people, has been to test it in a court, rather than making their own decision for which they should be accountable.

So I understand the distinction she makes. But it's spooky that on every occasion they've got it wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So far as the jury are concerned. My Lord, again, it's a fundamental misunderstanding. If fundamental misunderstanding. If they've got it wrong, the judge would have withdrawn it at half time. It would never have got as time. It would never have got as far as the jury if there were no. And that is and the the the fact And that is and the the the fact that the jury is acquitted does not. The two things simply don't correlate. My Lords, the noble correlate.

My Lords, the noble Lords amendment gives no indication as to how his proposed test would fit with the code for Crown prosecutors, save that. We would then have a two tier system with one rule for the police and another rule for those citizens who they police. It's hard to see how such a situation could command public confidence. As the noble Lord Lord Faulks has said, the unique position of firearms officers will be taken into consideration at both stages of the full code test in cases involving fatal police shootings, the Crown Prosecution Service already considers whether the officer's actions were necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, as the officer honestly believed them to be recognising how difficult it can be to make fine decisions in the heat of the moment.

It's the same law that applies to every citizen. Prosecutions in these cases are very, very rare, reflecting the high threshold already applied, and an additional statutory presumption is neither necessary nor appropriate. Lastly, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Carter's amendment 3403 as ever attractively advanced by him, the government's position remains as it was at Committee stage. There cannot be a separate criminal law for police officers in homicide cases. The current legal framework already offers robust protection for those who act under a genuine and honest belief, even if that belief later proves to be mistaken.

And in any event, the Law Commission is considering the offences of homicide and the government will take account of their report in due course and consider it carefully. My Lords, I am grateful for the debate we have had today. It is clear there are strongly held views on both sides, but the government believes it struck the right balance in order to protect our highly valued armed police officers, whilst not standing in the way of the principle of open justice and a single tier justice system.

For that reason, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

21:25

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

I'm very grateful to the Minister and I'm very grateful to Minister and I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on what has been an interesting and what has been an interesting and important debate on a vital question. I'm also grateful to the Minister and her officials, who have devoted considerable time to meeting me and others concerned about this matter and for taking our concerns so seriously. My noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere made the point that there's much agreement on all sides, and there is.

And I think it's very important to emphasise that we all agree that firearms officers do a vitally important job. They do it in the public interest, and they do it in exceptionally difficult circumstances. And they have our thanks for their service. I cannot agree with Lord Davis, respectfully cannot agree with Lord Davis on Amendment 394 for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. I mean to say to the public that a particular category of defendant that is, firearms officers should only be prosecuted if the circumstances are exceptional, would send a terrible message to the public and to public confidence in relation to cases where someone has died by reason of the actions of an officer of state, surely the standard principle should apply that the CPS ask themselves whether there's whether a conviction is more likely than not, and whether it's in the public interest for there to be a prosecution.

And in assessing the public interest in assessing whether a conviction is likely, of course, the CPS take into account, as Lord Faulks said, all the circumstances and in particular that the officer is acting normally in the heat of the moment and in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Just a couple of points on my amendment in relation to anonymity, Lord Paddick made the powerful point that FA officers firearms officers are unique in that they are licensed to shoot and the likely outcome is death.

In almost all cases when they exercise those powers. But I do say to the House that this special, unique role makes it all the more important that open justice fully applies. Unless there is information before the court suggesting anonymity is needed. Viscount Goschen made the powerful point that these officers deserve certainty because otherwise, when they go out to work, when they're faced with an immediate threat of what they perceive to be an immediate threat, they might hesitate before shooting because they're worried about the consequences for them.

And this would be very much against the public interest. But I say to the noble viscount that under the clause 168, the firearms officer doesn't have certainty because all that the government are providing is a presumption. And as the Minister emphasised rightly, the court will decide, even with the presumption, whether anonymity should apply. But whatever noble Lords may think of my judgement on this, I can count, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure, this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 393C, d, e and F Lord Pannick not moved. Amendment 394

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Davies of Gower. My Lords, my amendment 394 seeks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my amendment 394 seeks presumption against prosecution for alleged conduct by authorised firearms officers. And I think I really do think that we owe it to firearms officers who have an exceptional responsibility. I do believe that we should provide this presumption against prosecution. And I have to say that I I'm not I didn't hear the warm words that I was looking for from from the frontbench of government, frontbench. So I'm afraid that I do seek to divide the House on this.

21:30

Division

21:42

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise to move amendment 398 and to speak to the amendment in my name. 399 systemic flaws in our training infrastructure leave frontline officers, underequipped and the public at risk. Training should be the bedrock of policing excellence, not a Cinderella function that is both underfunded and undervalued in committee, the Minister asked the House to wait for solutions in the government's White Paper. That document has now arrived, but instead of solutions, it proposes to streamline training and even scopes, a reduction in essential public and personal safety training.

In the real world of policing, streamline is too often code for cutting corners at a time when one third of our officers have less than five years service the most inexperienced workforce in decades, reducing the frequency of safety and deescalating training is a dangerous recipe for increased injuries and risk of misconduct. The White Paper offers licenses to practice and digital passports. These are bureaucratic distractions, not real reform. We risk burying officers under accreditation paperwork while they struggle to build chargeable cases for complex modern crimes like cuckooing, stalking and online fraud.

Most concerning is the shift towards learning on the job within everyday operational work. For an inexperienced force, this too often means picking up bad habits from equally inexperienced colleagues. Furthermore, by absorbing the College of Policing into the new National Police Service, the government is asking the police to mark their own homework. No organisation can objectively evaluate its own systemic failings. An independent statutory review should be non-negotiable. We cannot keep adding new duties into the statute book respect orders, offensive weapons laws and the rest.

Without a concurrent independent assessment to check whether the training system last audited nationally in 2012 can actually deliver them. Turning to amendment 399, this addresses another critical gap by placing a statutory duty on every police force to provide regular, high quality mental health training. Mental health calls now constitutes 15 to 25% of all police demand. Yet too many officers lack the specialist training to manage them safely. This amendment establishes a national minimum standard aligned with right care, right person, requiring every officer to complete initial training within six months of assuming frontline duties, followed by refreshers every two years.

At the same time, we must ensure responsibility is not unfairly shifted onto the police. Much of the current difficulty stems from the lack of clear shared guidance between police, ambulance and social care services. Blurred boundaries lead to gaps and delays. Right care right person has reduced unnecessary police involvement, but has also created new challenges. In some cases, other services have gamed the system to trigger police support. In others, officers have withdrawn too early, leaving vulnerable people without immediate help.

I hope the Minister will look carefully at these unintended consequences and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 398. Amendment proposed after clause 182 insert the following new clause 182 insert the following new clause police training independent review

21:46

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

as printed on the master list. >> I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lucy, for bringing back her amendment. 398. We broadly supported the intention behind her amendment at Committee stage and we echo that today. It is of course not acceptable that there has been no independent review of the quality of more than £400 million spent annually on training for eight years, and the statistics of police officer experience and unsolved crimes bear witness to that fact. I am grateful that since our debate at Committee stage, the government has brought forward a White Paper that covers many aspects of policing, including training.

And this is a welcome step. But perhaps the Minister could outline some more specifics on the form of the form this reform will take. I am conscious of the College of Policing is still working on precise proposals, but an update would be very much appreciated. It is a positive sign that the government recognises this gap in our policing and seems to be acting upon it as such. Whilst we support the noble Baroness intention, we believe that letting the government carry out their work is a more practical next step.

As we noted in committee, whilst we also support the noble Baroness. Intention in the form of amendment 399 R, providing the best possible care to those with mental health problems. We cannot support this specific measure. The government have made it clear that in the Mental Health Act last year, that they want the role of police reduced in mental health decisions reduced. We broadly support this. It reflects the belief that health workers, not the police, are the right officials to be dealing with mental health issues.

Any police training must not blur this clear distinction. And that said, I do understand the police officers are often the first responders to situation concerning mental health patients, and so I acknowledge the complexity of this issue, but I would welcome the Minister underlining the government's position on this in his reply.

21:48

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

Well, said David. >> Well, said David. >> My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, for these amendments which bring us back to the important issue of police the important issue of police training. Firstly, amendment 308 would require the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police training. As your Lordships' House will be aware, the College of Policing is responsible for setting national training standards, which includes the curriculum and accreditations for specialist roles. Our Police Reform White Paper set out our commitment to develop a licence to practise for policing, and this will seek to create a unified system that brings together mandatory training with consistent professional development and wellbeing support.

As we work with the sector, we'll examine the existing training landscape and look to the findings of the Lordship Commission, led by my noble friend Lord Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. We will also consider how this model can build on the accreditations and licensing already delivered by the College of Policing in specialist operational areas. As has been noted, the. Both this evening and at Committee stage, College of Policing is also developing a National Strategic Trade Training Panel, which will provide further sector led insights into existing training models.

We would not want to pre-empt the outcomes of this work or create a burden of extensive reviews for the sector. When much activity is underway through police reform. We therefore do not believe it's necessary for the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police officer training and development as proposed an amendment 308. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw as these issues are being examined comprehensively through existing work, and I can assure them that this is a key element of our police reform agenda.

Indeed, you know, once the. Having published the White Paper, we will obviously progress. That and the appropriate time produce forms as they may. There may be there may be necessary which will lead to whether it's through legislative vehicle or not, there'll be further opportunities for your Lordships' House. And indeed, the other place to debate the debate, further reforms at at length. I'm sorry that the noble Lady Baroness Doocey was rather, I'd say, dismissive of introducing the license to practice.

We think it's officers deserve a clear and consistent structure to empower them to learn, train and develop as skilled professionals. Once implemented, the licence model will provide greater assurance that the police have the correct training and wellbeing support to do their jobs, and that there are regular reviews to ensure they meet national standards. We recognise that we will not be able to introduce a licensing model overnight, but we set out the first steps for licensing model, including mandatory leadership standards and a strong performance management framework.

Turning to our Second Amendment. Amendment 399. This seeks to ensure that police officers have the training required to deal with people who are suffering from a mental health crisis. As I've indicated, the setting of standards and the provision of mandatory and non-mandatory training material is a matter for the College of Policing. They provide core learning standards, which includes the initial training for officers under the Police Constable Entry program. This underpins initial learning levels around autism, learning disabilities, mental health, neurodiversity and other vulnerabilities through forces.

Utilising this established training, officers are taught to assess vulnerability and amend their approaches as required to understand how best to communicate with those who are vulnerable for whatever reason, and understand how to support people exhibiting these needs. To comprehend fully these powers in law fully sorry, apologies, their powers in law, and to continue to amass specialist knowledge to work with other relevant agencies to help individuals. My Lords, we consider it impractical to expect, or indeed require police officers to become experts in the entire range of mental health and vulnerability conditions, including autism and learning disabilities.

Instead, the College of Policing rightly seeks to equip them to make rational decisions in a wide range of circumstances and to treat people fairly and with humanity at all times. All forces are my Lords. I've said this a number of times, but all forces are operationally independent of government and to seek to impose requirements on mandatory training risks undermining that very principle. Furthermore, each force area has unique situations, different processes, different priorities, different geographies, and has different needs to mandate that small rural force must undertake the same training as a large urban force will not give them the flexibility they need in order to best serve their local communities.

Furthermore, it's the College of Policing that is best placed to draw on their expertise to determine the relevant standards and training that the police require. The training that's already been provided equips officers with the knowledge to recognise indicators of mental health and learning disabilities, to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators, indicators to understand their police powers and to develop specialist knowledge. To work with other agencies to help individuals. And as the noble Lord, Lord Davis said in his remarks, you know it is not to replace the real experts, the mental health workers, both in the NHS and other other agencies who are best placed to provide that sort of specialist knowledge, expertise and expertise.

So I hope that on the basis of these comments and the work that's already underway, the noble Lady will be content to withdraw her amendment.

21:53

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lord, I thank the Minister for his response. I don't really for his response. I don't really think it matters who is responsible for training. What does matter is that training is appropriate and that officers are trained now. I spent most of last year talking to Chief Constable's in the whole of the UK, and their view was very different to what the Minister has just said. Their view was that they do not get sufficient training.

That training is piecemeal, piecemeal and that they have virtually no training in anything to do with mental health. Now, I don't think that they were just making that up. I think this was something that they genuinely believed. In fact, I'm pretty certain about it. Also, HMRC FRS has reported time and time and time again that training is inconsistent. The quality is weak. There are weak checks on force run programs, poor support for new officers, and the obvious risks of forces marking their own homework.

And these gaps demand independent scrutiny. So I don't think that is similar to what the Minister has just said. I really believe that training is a vital ingredient of officers. We sit in this House and in the other place, and we make rules and regulations as to what should happen, but what we don't do is make sure that the people on the ground who are facing these problems every day are equipped to be able to deal with them.

And I think that's frankly, a disgrace. I think the fact that there's been no independent check on police training since 2012 is almost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beyond belief. But it's late, so I will withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 399 Baroness Doocey not Amendment 399 Baroness Doocey not moved, not not moved. Do you know. That brings us to amendment 400

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Doocey. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 400 and speak to amendment 401 standing in my name. Amendment 400 would place a clear legal duty on police forces to declare high impact algorithmic tools using the government's own algorithmic transparency recording standards, which is known as Atls. The Atls is currently just professional guidance, not a binding obligation, and compliance is dangerously patchy, with many live operating operational tools still undeclared publicly.

Yesterday, a search of the public repository found only two entries for police AI tools, despite systems like live facial recognition being in widespread use, the government's White paper promises a new registry through its Police Act AI initiative. However, without statutory backing, this risks becoming another under-used, voluntary scheme that takes years to implement. While AI moves at a relentless pace in committee, the Minister claimed the 80s was too jargon heavy and designed only for Whitehall. My Lords, the Atrs contains dual tiers, a plain English narrative for citizens and technical details for experts.

The real barrier isn't jargon, it's commercial confidentiality clauses in procurement contracts. Without a statutory duty, forces cannot override these clauses. Even where tools restrict rights and freedoms. The Minister was also concerned about compromising operational effectiveness and scrutiny. The Atrs already builds in exemptions for national security and for cases where disclosure would prejudice law enforcement. A statutory duty would actually codify these existing safeguards, not remove them. We're talking about tools of state coercion, predicted Pre-crime models and risk scoring 999 calls.

The public is entitled to operational transparency to judge their fairness. Defendants cannot challenge what they cannot see. My Second Amendment 401 responds to Baroness Casey national audit. It mandates a national plan with clear milestones to modernise police data systems for real time intelligence sharing. The government's White Paper admits that 90% of crime now has a digital element, and that policing has fallen behind, fragmented. It creates a back door for security vulnerabilities and a forensic backlog of 20,000 devices.

The Minister insists that existing programs offer more agility than a statutory plan, but this piecemeal approach is exactly what has failed us for 30 years. I welcome the NPCC recent announcement of a National Data Integration and Exploitation service. However, this is still at the scoping stage, offering only guidance. It lacks binding timelines and parliamentary oversight that the serious failings exposed in Baroness Casey audit suggests are urgently needed, and that amendment 401 would deliver. The Home Secretary she wants says she wants to go big or go home on police reform.

This is her chance. A clear pathway towards a national strategic overhaul, a basic transparency duty must be part of that foundation. The service with the most intrusive powers should not work to a lower transparency bar than Whitehall. I beg to move amendment 400.

22:00

Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord Remnant proposed after clause 1H2. Insert the new clause set out on the Marshalled List. >> Well. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I was going to speak on amendment 400 in this group and 407, but my noble friend Baroness Doocey has made such an excellent contribution. I'll. I'll skip my speech on amendment 400, but I do want to say I'm not quite sure what the point is of me speaking on any motion here tonight, because at this stupid time of day and with no chance of a meaningful division to test the opinion of the House, I'm not quite sure what the point is.

This is this isn't scrutiny that we're doing here. This is this is just going through the motions. Nevertheless, I will go ahead with my speech on amendment four. I said, if only to put my views on the record. I have to say that Baroness Cash, whose name this is, is, is not here. Sorry. Baroness Cash is not here. I believe I'm since my name is on amendment 407, that I may propose it on her behalf, am I correct? Yes.

Thank you, my Lords. Amendment 407 asks us to make a very practical decision about policing and about tackling violence against women and girls. It is not, I repeat, not about taking sides in a culture war, recording biological sex in every case is about getting the basics right. Honest crime figures, sound operational decisions and better protection for victims of violence. If we don't know clearly who is male and who is female in our police data, we cannot properly track male violence, we cannot spot patterns, and we cannot target resources where they're most needed.

When police forces blur sex and gender identity, the data starts to go wrong. Hardly any perpetrators of sexual violence are women, so it only takes a small number of male offenders being recorded as women to wrongly make it look as if women are suddenly committing many more violent and sexual offences. That distorts our statistics, makes it harder to see the true scale of male violence against women, and risks bad safeguarding decisions if systems shift between recording sex, gender is perceived or self-identified gender, we lose track of the trends.

We can no longer say with confidence whether male violence is rising or falling, or whether policy changes are working or not. And when the public discovers that quotes female means one thing in one table and something different in another, trust in policing and government data inevitably suffers. Professor Alice Sullivan is one of the UK's leading experts in quantitative social science. She was appointed by the government to independently review how public organisations can best collect data on sex and gender.

Her review cuts through the confusion that currently exists. It says that when the state needs sex data, it should ask a simple factual question about biological sex. What is your sex, male or female? And that must be kept separate from any voluntary questions about gender identity. It strongly recommends that all police forces must record biological sex in all relevant systems. Now my Lord, some people worry that this will force trans people to out themselves to the police. Well, it shouldn't, and it doesn't have to.

Police already record very sensitive information religion, disability, sexuality while respecting confidentiality, human rights and data protection law. The sex question is about biological reality for operational and statistical purposes held securely in the background systems. It is not a licence to broadcast someone's history or to deny their gender identity in day to day interactions, where there is a need to understand gender identity, that can be done through a separate, clearly labelled voluntary question with strict safeguards.

So, my Lords, the choice is stark. If we don't record biological sex, we accept distorted crime figures, poor operational decisions, broken trend data and growing public mistrust. If we do record biological sex clearly and consistently, we give ourselves honest statistics, better safeguarding and a policing system that can actually see and therefore tackle the reality of male violence against women and girls.

22:05

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

Yeah. >> My Lords, I, I, I rise to to speak to amendment 407 as well on the recording of sex in police data. the recording of sex in police data. And it's a real shame that the noble Lady Baroness Cash is is unable to be with us, because I know she would have moved it very elegantly. It's a year ago, from March 2025, that Professor Alison Sullivan's review, data, statistics and research on sex and gender came out, and that review pointed out that it is well established that sex is a major determinant of offenders and victimisation.

Now, as the noble Lord Lord Strasburger has just pointed out, and he may have been going through the motions, but if I can just say that he went through them very well by explaining very clearly why this amendment matters, it's very difficult for the government to claim to have a target based campaign to reduce violence against women and girls. If you don't have consistent, accurate data in relation to women and girls. But while Professor Sullivan's review was broadly welcomed by the government, its recommendations have not yet been acted on and this amendment attempts to nudge some action from the government.

The issue of delayed guidance is a constant problem. The Women's Rights Network recently contacted the National Police Chiefs Council inquiring if they intend to now record sex accurately and address the. What they said was the ideological corruption of data. The ELM PCCs reply, and I quote says updates to the collection and recording of sex and gender reassignment questions are pending, subject to the issue of national guidance by the Office of Statistics and Government Statistical Service. Following the UK Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.

So that's one pending answer. Individual police forces responding to a variety of organisations queries about the continued use of a variety of approaches to collecting sex data, including self ID, recording a rapist as female and so on, say that they are waiting for guidance from the ONS and the GPS. I mean, is there anyone not waiting for guidance? And it just feels as though this is a waste of time and unnecessarily adding to confusion at committee, I went into detail about differing and contradictory data collection practices across police forces, and I won't repeat that.

But for now, to point out, recording practices vary not just between, but within criminal justice agencies and even relevant government departments. And as there are 40 different databases at a national level relating to criminal justice, it just means that the data that's being collected as we speak is full of discrepancies. The Home Office Standards annual data requirement on demographic data, for example, advises police forces to record sex subject to a gender recognition certificate under mandatory Home Office standards on police use of force, for example, require officers to record perceived gender with the choice of male or female other.

Or there's MAPPA, the multi-agency public protection agency, which is focussed on protecting the public from the most serious harm from sexual and violent offenders, including convicted terrorists. It too, conflates sex and gender in its data collection. But the Murray, Blackburn and Mackenzie criminal Justice blog, discovered via a Freedom of Information, requests that MAPPA provides police officers across the UK with 51 options to record the gender identity of high risk offenders. I mean, how does it help the public keep safe or aid operational coherence to know whether a terrorist or a paedophile is pan gender, genderqueer, agender, big gender by gender or gender fluid, just to name a few of the 51 options they could fill in.

I'm not trying to be glib. I'm just urging the government to bring clarity and consistency to the collection of data and sex in relation to both victims and perpetrators, because otherwise, I think it is unfair to claim that this is. There is anything like an evidence based policy when it comes to sex and indeed to gender. We actually have recently had some exchanges about the new aggravated about new aggravated offences in relation to transgender people. And there are people who are transgender who claim that hate speech and hate crime against them has gone up.

And I'm not challenging whether that's true or not. But in order to actually collate the data to make a case for that, one has to make a distinction in the collection of data between somebody who is transgender rather than somebody who says, I am a woman who is, in fact, a transgender person who identifies as a woman. So I think that for all victims concerned, let alone understanding the nature of offenders, we need to have accurate, consistent data across all criminal justice agencies, across all police forces.

The noble Lady, the Minister, I hope, will at least give us an assurance that Professor Sullivan's fine and important review, which is full of detail and evidence and with practical conclusions, and the government has welcomed it. I hope that those recommendations will be acted on. And if we can get that assurance tonight, then that would be brilliant. If there's any government reluctance to accept Professor Sullivan's review, it would be really helpful to understand why what the Hold-up is, and maybe the Minister could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explain that to. My Lord Singh. I'm so sorry. I know it's always difficult, isn't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know it's always difficult, isn't. It, when someone's moving. Forgive me, my Lords. I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, my Lords. I want to give an what Lord Strasburger said about the lateness of the hour, which I think we're all aware of. I want to be very, very short on about my concerns about 406 and 407. I'm sorry not to see the noble Baroness Cash in her place. My concerns about both amendments are about both. About practicality and dignity of people. In a nutshell, what they both have in common is that the the police are going to be the race police and the sex police,

22:12

Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)

- -

in addition to being the police. And. And both of these amendments require police officers to make a require police officers to make a judgement, even against the way judgement, even against the way that the the suspect or the victim defines themselves at any stage in defines themselves at any stage in the criminal justice process. And I think that's a mistake. And how is think that's a mistake. And how is this going to work? My Lords? Somebody goes, a victim goes to the police because they've experienced an assault or another serious crime.

Whatever community or person they are, they're going to go to the police. And the police officer by both of these amendments is required to interrogate whether they are who they who they say they are on sex and, and race grounds. And I also think this is a this is a this is a real mistake. And it will not help the police in the difficult work they have to do. And it certainly won't help all of our communities in these difficult times.

I think that is one minute and 58 seconds. I hope you understand my point.

22:14

Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord. >> I wish to speak on a slightly different topic on my amendment in this group. 409FA and I've tabled it because we face a three pronged crisis. First, there is the growing evidence of foreign interference from both governments and individuals seeking to subvert our democracy, and the case of former reform UK leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, who pled guilty, of course, to charges of bribery, is perhaps the most prominent example. But it's by no means the only one, as shown, for example, by MI5's recent alert to MPs, to ourselves and to parliamentary staff.

After finding that Chinese intelligence officers were attempting to recruit people. Second, there have been far too many other political scandals involving misbehaviour by politicians, such as those involving the then Lord Mandelson, though he is by no means, sadly the only person from this House or due to join this House, who has recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. And third, trust in politics and politicians is at a worryingly low level. The 41st British Social Attitudes Survey, for example, found that, quote, trust and confidence in Britain's system of government are at record low.

And given recent events, I think it is a reasonable fear that future BSA data will show new record lows being hit. We therefore need to up our game and it is welcome that the government is taking some steps to do so. The plans in the Hillsborough Bill to modernise the law over misconduct in public office are particularly welcome, but more needs doing and hence this amendment this evening and hence this amendment, which focuses on the need to crack what can be the very difficult nature of crimes involving politicians and others in Parliament and Whitehall.

Now, such cases often have a foreign angle, and even when domestic. The. For example. Nature of MPs working both in Westminster and in their constituency means they often span multiple police forces. Such cases frequently require specialist skills and can involve rarer types of criminal offences, and that's without getting into the well reported difficulty of compiling sufficient evidence to see it. To see a successful route from charge through prosecution to conviction. Now, of course, those police who currently investigate such allegations are valuable, committed public servants.

But take the example of counter-terrorism police who sometimes investigate such crimes. They already have huge competing and important responsibilities, and for them to investigate a potential crime in relation to public office, it must cross the bar of representing a threat to national security. A high bar that excludes many potential investigations. Furthermore, the counter-terrorism policing collaboration has itself warned that policing non-terrorist threats like corruption, is difficult because these actions are often disguised as legitimate. Attribution can be challenging, and to quote them, the tactics and tools used by state actors are constantly evolving, requiring ongoing adaptation and research.

So I'm making no criticism at all of counter-terror policing. When I say that, I think their own words illustrate the need for a dedicated unit focussed on these specific complex problems, evolving in response to new tactics, and which has officers that are expert in the hidden and covert ways in which public office can be abused. We also need an approach that is robust enough withstand the obstructions of the powerful that is not stopped by deference or personal connections.

And that's why a body like the unit in this amendment, operating under the National Crime Agency and subject to appropriate scrutiny and accountability, is needed. It's the approach that we need both to catch the crooks and to rebuild trust in our politics. Certainly other areas need action too, particularly vetting, and I very much hope that today's announcements on that and related matters from the Cabinet Office bear fruit. But this amendment sets out an additional approach that would be an important part of the solution.

And I very much look forward to hearing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord, the minister's response. better. Begin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By confessing. A misdemeanour. That many years ago. At the time of the national

22:18

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

>> At the time of the national census, I added. >> My terrier's. Name to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My terrier's. Name to the. To the census as a as. A rodent operative, giving her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A rodent operative, giving her her age in dog years. But it does illustrate that it is important that when we are gathering data that it is, by and large reliable. In fact, the principles of GDPR should surely lead us to say that we have no business collecting personal data from people if we are not actually going to use it, and if we are collecting data, which is so remarkably corrupt as some of the data which the noble Lord Lord Strasburger talked about, it's useless.

It tells us nothing about what's going on in society. We have no function, there's no valid use we can make of that data, so we should not be collecting it. So the first question for the police and the government to ask themselves is, do you need the data? Do you actually need to record sex? In the case of of all crimes and victims, if you do, what are you going to use that data for? And if you're going to use that data, is it not important that it's accurate? And choose therefore, what data you record according to the use that you're going to make of it.

And so I have a lot of sympathy with amendments for seven and 406. I am, despite my past bad behaviour, in favour of accurate data. And if I can end by giving the noble Lord Lord Strasburger a moment's comfort. Once an amendment is on the Order Paper, it's the property of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. Anybody can move it or address or address it. My Lord, I wish to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I wish to speak incredibly briefly, purely because the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord Lord Strasburger, did mention the Lord Strasburger, did mention the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. She personally spoke to the noble Lord Lord Hanson, the noble Lord Lord Lord Hanson, the noble Lord Lord Katz, and she apologises. She was otherwise detained and she sends

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her regrets. My. My Lords, if I could briefly

22:20

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

again say that I'm a paid advisor to the Metropolitan Police. I have not discussed this subject with the police. However, these are my police. However, these are my personal views from an operational police, from my operational police, from my operational policing experience. What I would say about amendments 406 and 407 are the proportion of transgender

22:21

Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)

- -

are the proportion of transgender men and women in the general population is very small. The proportion of offenders who are transgender are even smaller than that, and the number of transgender people who are convicted of violence is tiny. The number of criminal offences committed by transgender people is neither statistically nor operationally significant for the police. In terms of victim data, the most important operationally useful data for the police in relation to hate crime is how the victim identifies themselves and in terms of other offences.

It is what motivated the assailant. That is what did the assailant perceive the victim to be? Did the victim perceive the person to be female? In which case it's misogyny? Did they perceive the victim to be transgender? In which case it's transphobia, the birth sex of the victim is not that operationally significant for the police, nor is it likely to be statistically significant.

22:22

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I have. Paddick comments. The office for National Statistics, in response to an FOI said on the collection of an FOI said on the collection of data in relation to gender identity, gender, gender identity from sex registered at birth category. We have not. We have not. We. Excuse me. We have to be robust enough to provide reliable estimates, but there is not enough data to be able to do that. Why am I Lord Singh? Because the data is so low it is statistically insignificant.

It is not corrupt and it is not many more to twist it for for women. So I think, my Lords, I mean, it's the only point I want to make. We need to be factually accurate when we're just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lady finishes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I just ask her to? Go ahead?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Go ahead? The before we end this. Yes, get on with it. The point I was going on with it. The point I was going to ask was it my point was actually not making some of the points that not making some of the points that have been assumed that was being made. It was about consistency. And that's the point that Professor Sullivan makes, that different police forces are collecting different data in relation either to gender identity or to sex, sometimes conflating the two, sometimes using multiple variations of a theme.

And I then use the analogy of across criminal justice. So from the point of view of whatever evidence it is that you're trying to collect as the as one of the noble Lords has pointed out, if you're going to collect data and maybe we shouldn't bother, but if we're going to, is it going to be useful if it's actually all different all over the country, depending on the department? That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all. I'm struggling to hear the question in the lady's intervention, I just repeat the points. The I just repeat the points. The office for National Statistics and the police data that is currently collected, both say the numbers are collected, both say the numbers are so low they are insignificant and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore unusable. My Lords, this group of amendment raises two significant issues for modern policing issues for modern policing transparency in the use of algorithmic tools and the modernisation of police data and intelligence systems. Turning First Amendment 400 in the name of the noble Baroness lady DC. We on these benches recognise the intention behind the proposal as policing increasingly makes use of digital,

22:24

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

complex digital tools such as data analytics and algorithms. It's entirely right that questions of entirely right that questions of transparency and public confidence are taken seriously. However, as discussed at Committee stage, we discussed at Committee stage, we should be mindful that policing operates in a sensitive operational environment. Any transparency framework must strike the right framework must strike the right balance between openness on the one hand and the need to protect investigative capability and operational effectiveness on the other. Amendment 401 also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Juicy addresses a different but equally important issue the state of police data and intelligence systems.

While few would dispute that technology within policing must keep pace with the demands of modern crime, and the challenge is not simply identifying the problem, but determining the most effective mechanism to address it. Modernising policing technology is a complex and ongoing task that already involves national programs, investment decisions and operational input from forces themselves. For these reasons, while we recognise the important objectives behind these amendments, the question for noble Lords is whether the specific legislative approach proposed here is the most effective way of delivering them.

Turning to the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Lady Kash, which seek to require the police to record the ethnicity and sex of a suspect, these are steps that these benches wholly support. The importance of these measures can hardly be overstated. Recording ethnicity data has been recommended by experts of all professions, parties and associations or associations. It is a requisite requirement for enabling police to track and measure crime trends within certain communities, and serves a secondary purpose of allowing or affirming arguments and claims about offending statistics, which currently are, regrettably too often reduced to conjecture.

Similarly, my Lords, we support the recording of sex data as part of a larger drive to secure the rights of women by delineating sex from whatever gender identity and individual assigns themselves. We are entirely supportive, therefore, of my noble friend Lady Cash's amendments and are grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken in support of them tonight. I hope the Minister agrees that these are issues that should be above the political divide, and these amendments will improve operational response.

22:27

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

I thank all noble Lords have spoken in this wide ranging debate spoken in this wide ranging debate on a wide ranging group of amendments. I'll begin with amendment 400, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey. And I fully agree. And indeed, we have, I think, across political cross-party consensus here, the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by the police and acknowledge the current lack of a complete or consistent national picture of the police use of AI, as has been highlighted by the noble Lady.

However, the algorithmic transparency Recording standard, or a t r s, was designed for central government, an arm's length body to use and it is simply not the most effective or proportionate mechanism for delivering right meaningful transparency in an operational policing context. As we announced in the Policing Reform White Paper, the government is taking forward a national registry of police AI deployments. The registry will be operated by the new National Centre for AI and policing, which will be launched later this spring.

This police specific registry approach will will address directly the concerns raised at Committee stage and again this evening about patchy disclosure, public confidence and accountability while respecting operational independence. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly noted the importance of having a flexibility, flexible approach when it comes to operational policing and locking policing into an inflexible statutory mechanism to disclose tools under the Atrs, even as an interim measure, would risk duplicative reporting, unclear disclosure expectations and additional administrative burdens on forces without improving public understanding or oversight.

The Policing Minister is an active program of work designed specifically to close the transparency gap. It will adopt a tiered approach to transparency. All operational AI deployments will be recorded nationally, while robust exemptions framework will protect genuinely sensitive capabilities from public disclosure in a similar manner to how the Freedom of Information Act operates. This approach is designed to deliver clear, narrow narratives for the public, with named officers accountable for AI deployments in their force and strong compliance incentives. The government fully expects police forces to utilise the registry and be transparent with the public about the algorithms they're using and the steps that have been taken to ensure they are being used responsibly.

This is vital to building and maintaining public consent for the use of these powerful tools. Turning now to amendment 401, the government agrees with the importance of updating police, IT and intelligent systems to deliver the integrated and efficient tools required in the modern environment to protect victims and support effective policing, and acknowledges the long recognised and frustrating problems of fragmented and outdated data infrastructure in policing and the criminal justice system. However, my Lords, it's important to recognise what's already in place and that Parliament already plays a robust role in oversight.

Committees in both houses examine police technology programs and HMRC. FRS reports annually on progress and failures in policing infrastructure. These mechanisms already ensure transparency and accountability. While I agree wholeheartedly with noble Lords, it is on the need for decisive action to improve IT and intelligent systems. We cannot fix productivity or case timeliness without fixing the digital infrastructure that lies beneath it. The White Paper sets out a comprehensive vision for transforming policing, including on technology and data. The government intends to create a powerful National Police Service to mandate data standards to drive consistency in how data is recorded, managed and used across policing.

This will ensure the information sharing is applied uniformly across England and Wales. We will also improve national data integration and data sharing by establishing a national data integration and Exploitation exploitation service to link key policing data sets and enable secure, timely sharing between police forces and back with central government. We also expect that this will become a central point of access for external agencies who need to access key policing data. In parallel, a new program will work is being established to improve data flows across the criminal justice system, including between policing and probation.

Taken together, these, I would contend, are important advances. Legislating for a statutory plan, risk creating duplication and slowing the work already in motion by additional. Introducing additional and disproportionate reporting requirements. What matters, my Lords, is delivery of actual change on the ground, rather than generating additional reporting duties or parallel planning processes. Amendment 407, which was moved by Lord Strasburger in the place of Baroness Cash. And I just want to say yes indeed. She spoke to both myself and my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint to convey her apologies for being absent this evening.

Amendment 407 would mandate the collection of sex data of all individuals for whom the police have reason to collect personal data for policing purpose. The government agrees that there needs to be consistent and accurate data recorded on sex, and we recognise in some cases there is an issue with the conflation of sex and gender. We are carefully considering the implications of the Supreme Court ruling in the Sullivan Review, in the context of what needs and is proportionate to record, to record for policing purposes.

And this, of course, may differ depending on whether an individual is a victim, a suspect, or indeed a convicted offender. And I think I would commend the comments of my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti noble Lord Maude Lord Paddick and indeed noble Baroness Lady Brinton, in acknowledging a the proportionality that's involved. When we're talking about some of the data sets that we've been referring to this evening, particularly around transgender, but also the fact that if we live by the Macpherson principles. The important thing is how a victim in.

In many cases identifies the. Themselves rather than in an in a in an abstract way. So I would reject the contention that I'm not or the, the, the, the potential conjecture, maybe I should say, on par for the noble Lord Lord Lucas that the data is is corrupt. The government recognises the importance of collecting accurate and relevant data on sex and the Solomon review which to to try and address the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley point. The Southern Review was commissioned by the previous administration, made a number of recommendations concerning how data on sex and gender identity is collected.

Individual departments are now considering these findings as part of their ongoing policy work. The Government Statistical Service is currently developing harmonised data standards for sex and gender identity, with harmonised standards and guidance on the collection of sex data scheduled the scheduled for publication in the autumn, this programme of work aims to improve and standardise how sex and gender identity data are collected across government and beyond. It has been informed by the findings of the Southern Review Sullivan Review, alongside wider evidence gathered through stakeholder engagement and ongoing research activities.

So I hope this clarifies the government's position. As noble Lords noted in our previous debate at Committee stage, this amendment is so wide ranging in its reach as to render it disproportionate in the obligations it would place on forces would apply to all suspects, all arrested persons charged, cautioned and convicted, as well as victims. Our position remains the Home Secretary already has some powers available to obtain relevant personal data such as age, sex and ethnicity from police forces, and this power is exercised through an annual data requirement, which sets out what data should be recorded and provided to the Home Office.

We remain of the view. This is more appropriate route to specify how data should be recorded than the wide ranging legislation proposed in the amendment. That said, we are committed to legislating to mandate the collection of data of suspects, and as part of that, we'll explore whether wider powers are needed to mandate different categories of data. Finally, as the noble Lord Lord Pack has set out, amendment 409, EFRA seeks to require the National Crime Agency to establish a new unit dedicated to preventing, detecting and investigating investigating crimes relating to public office related to public office by those individuals in Parliament and Whitehall.

Your Lordships' House will be aware that the Parliamentary Liaison and Investigations Team already operates under the command of the Metropolitan Police. It coordinates intelligence and investigations relating to threats, abuse and security incidents involving Members of Parliament. This government is firmly committed to robust accountability and oversight for those in public office serving the public. It's only right that offences of this nature are investigated thoroughly to protect the integrity of those working in Parliament and Whitehall. However, decisions about whether to investigate potential criminal activity is a matter for law enforcement who are operationally independent of government.

It's only right that we respect this. Operation independence would not be appropriate to mandate how any law enforcement agency, including the National Crime Agency, deploys its resources and to do so could undermine their independence. Given that, and I hope with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel free to feel able to withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords will not press

**** Possible New Speaker ****

theirs. Noble Lord, the Minister, for his response, and I'm pleased to hear that there's to be a new registry, and that will be up and coming in a couple of months, I coming in a couple of months, I think, the Minister said, and that critically, it will deal with the issues that I raised both at. Committee stage and tonight at Committee stage and tonight at Report stage. And with that in mind, amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 401 not move. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

402 Lord Davies of Gower. My Lords, amendment 402 standing

22:36

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

>> My Lords, amendment 402 standing in my name and name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower concerns the application of the public Sector Equality duty under public Sector Equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, specifically to policing and law enforcement functions. The amendment would ensure that police forces are left to focus on their core duties to prevent crime and protect the public without being constrained. Everyday police officers must make difficult and sometimes instantaneous decisions in the most challenging circumstances, and their priority must always be public safety.

My Lord Geddes amendment provides a clear and limited exception from the public sector equality duty, when and only when police forces are exercising their operational, policing and law enforcement functions. Operational decision making, which so often takes place in fast moving situations, must be guided first and foremost by the need to prevent harm and uphold the law. Police powers are already limited by statute, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regulations, ethics codes, codes of practice, the IOPC and, of course, the courts not, not to mention operational safeguards.

My Lords, this amendment would ensure that clarity and focus is restored to the operational framework of the police, and would allow officers to concentrate on stopping crimes and protecting victims without the risks, that those decisions could later be questioned by a framework that was never designed. With front line policing in mind. I know my noble friend Lord Davis and the noble Lords Minister had a spirited debate at Committee stage on this topic. I must be entirely frank with your Lordships' House.

I do not intend to test the opinion of the House on this matter. I would like to probe the government, however, as to their rationale on retaining the current framework and its impact on policing. And for those reasons, I beg to move.

22:38

Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause 182 insert the new clause set out 182 insert the new clause set out on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's me again. I declare my interest as a paid advisor to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, particularly on issues of culture and leadership. My Lords, in the UK, we. Police by consent that relies on public trust and confidence. Public trust and confidence in turn, relies on the police treating every member of the public with dignity and respect, no matter what their background or what community they identify with. In addition, to ensure every police officer and member of police staff can be themselves and give their best, the public sector equality duty is essential.

You. Yesterday, the Commissioner of the police for the. Of the metropolis, sir Mark Rowley, told the London Policing Board that he was committed to continuing the UK's largest police force work on diversity, equality and inclusion. So if noble Lords won't take my word for how important the public sector equality duty is to policing, maybe they will take some arcs.

22:40

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

For my Lord Bowness my Lord. >> For my Lord Bowness my Lord. >> Lord Cameron of Lochiel introduced amendment 402, proposing that the police should be exempt from the public sector Equality from the public sector Equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure they are solely committed to ensure they are solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions. And I do have to say that I still have some difficulty in following the arguments for this amendment, which I also raised at Committee stage, and I just wonder if he seriously believes that applying the PS takes away from the police carrying out their duties effectively.

My noble friend Lady Ducey, speaking earlier to amendment 400, spoke of Lady Case's review and the importance of standards, training and inspection the perfect circle that ensures police forces are working effectively, and the CID is absolutely at the heart of that. My Lords, there have been a number of high profile cases that have absolutely strengthened the need for the CID. Indeed, it's been the failings in policing that shocked the country. And in every report on those incidents, the report has talked about appalling attitudes to vulnerable people.

On Monday evening, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon spoke about the murder of her son Steven and how that racist murder might have been stopped if the police had done their job earlier when the harassment was escalating in 1999, the Macpherson report, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, was a means of changing the culture with public institutions, not just the police, to ensure that they had due regard to race equality decisions, and later this was extended to disability and gender issues. It was clear in McPherson's report then that the police were institutionally racist, had a lack of curiosity about the anti-social behaviour in the Lawrence case of young white gangs and what they were doing to local black young people.

The whole design of the PS was to ensure that the police could do their job properly and without fear and favour, and supporting vulnerable communities. There are many excellent moral and dedicated police officers who fill this every working day, but sadly it has not always been consistent. So when Bibaa Henry and her sister Nicole Smallwood were murdered in a park in June 2020, police were appalled by the behaviour. Sorry. The public were appalled by the behaviour of the police. Photographs of the dead girls were taken and shared by police officers.

Racism and misogyny more work was needed to change the culture in this case of the met and when Sarah Everard was murdered in March 2021 by a serving police officer, the country was shocked. But the background story about misogyny in the force was equally shocking, and the fact that the dreadful behaviour of the murderer at work had been tolerated and not dealt with. And I raise these cases because each of the reports on these incidents keeps returning to the culture in certain places in the police that engenders racism and misogyny.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt, as was said by Lord Paddick, that there is an enormous amount of work going on to change that culture, and in many forces it is working well. But without the PCSC there would be no priority to have due regard to race, gender and disability. No yardstick for the police inspectorate to look at and address culture, no clear duty to ensure staff are trained. And worst of all, all too easy to slip back into the old ways.

And I am sure that the conservative frontbench would not want that to happen. The PS is an important tool in the armoury of the police to keep us all safe, including those who are both vulnerable and at high risk. Please do not support amendment 402.

22:44

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

We are here again and I don't expect the noble Lord Cameron to understand that I'm not going to change my position, I. There is a view that the issues of equality on a public sector body are extremely important. They're important for all the reasons. And I didn't disagree with a single word that the noble Lord Paddick has said. I didn't disagree with a single word that the noble Baroness Brinton has said. And I stand here to say that the public sector equality duty is one that this government will fully support.

I know that the noble Lord is not going to move this to a division this evening. If he did, I would ask my noble friends to vote against it, because it's important for the reasons that the noble Lord Paddick said the police are the public. The police have the confidence of the public. The peelian principles establishing the police force all those years ago were about the police, reflecting the public, understanding the public and taking into account the public and the public are made up of people who have disabilities, who are gay, who are lesbian, who are trans.

They are people who are women, who face particular challenges. The public are people who have protected characteristics. And we need to understand that. And the duty for the police does not dictate any particular outcome, nor is it a bureaucratic exercise. The level of due regard considered sufficient in any particular context depends on the facts, but the duty supports good decision making by helping decision makers understand how their activities affect different people. If an individual is black, they may have a different challenge in society for a range of reasons, and the police need to understand that as part of their equality, duty, responsibilities, as they do for people who are transgender, who are gay and lesbian, who have disabilities, or indeed, who face misogyny.

And it's really important that the duty is applied, yes, in a proportionate way. But as I said in in committee, all the duty does is ensure that equality issues are considered by public authorities, helping them maintain public trust and legitimacy with the communities they serve. And I just say to the noble Lord that I think he's got the short straw today in moving this amendment, I really do. I don't think I don't think his heart would really be in this one, and it's not in this one, because if he removes the police from this, it would undermine confidence in policing, it would undermine operational effectiveness.

And I'm sure that's not what the noble Lord wants. So I'm pleased he's not moving it. It's a positive move from His Majesty's loyal opposition not to move this amendment, because I'd hate to have them walk through the lobby over there, voting down something which actually is an integral part of our society and which makes our society the cohesive, supportive institution that our society is and should be. So I hope he'll withdraw it and, and reflect on why he put it forward in the first place.

22:47

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

I'm grateful to all noble Lords who've contributed to this debate. As my noble friend Lord Davies of As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said during committee, the question that your Lordships must ask, must ask themselves is what do we want the police to prioritise? And these benches have argued that the answer to that question is public safety, crime prevention and the fair and firm enforcement of the law. This amendment is aimed at removing a layer of obligation, bureaucratic obligation that is simply not fit for purpose for operational policing.

In our view, my Lords, effective policing is a public good. The way to ensure that the largest number of people are met with dignity and respect is to ensure that the law is enforced effectively. But in light of all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 401 Lord Carter of Amendment 401 Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved. Amendment 404

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Kidron. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Notes. Baroness Kidron amendment Lord Clement-Jones is the second name on it. Amendment 404.

22:48

Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords. >> Speak to amendments the. >> Our. >> And the spirit of my conversations with the noble Lady, conversations with the noble Lady, the Minister, I will not go through my amendments in detail, nor the very long journey it's been to get here. But in short, they concern earlier agreements that in cases where a child has died, that the coroner and the police should be equipped and informed to preserve data from online services. I do want to thank the noble Lady, the Minister and officials from both Ministry of Justice and DSIT for their engagement, and I want to acknowledge, before I put on the record some of my concerns, that for the last few weeks at least, we have been trying to get to the same place on this.

I am disappointed we have not quite found a way to do so, and I hope that she's going to find a way to reassure me. And possibly more importantly than reassuring me, the bereaved parents who have fought quite hard for this particular set of amendments, both my amendment 404 and the Government Amendment 429A seeks to make it automatic that on being notified of the death of a child, a coroner issues a data preservation notice. That means a regulated service under the Online Safety Act would have to preserve data.

The data of a child within five days. The government has agreed to this in principle, but wanted to exclude those children who die in circumstances such as road accident or in a hospital as a result of illness, to which I have agreed. But in their effort to exclude those children, it has in section those children, it has in section one B of its amendment 429A allowed the coroner to decide. I quote that no purpose would be served by Ofcom giving notice under the act, because such information is of no relevance to a child's death.

And my Lords, that is too broad. Giving permission for a coroner to decide what constitutes no purpose is a bit like snakes and ladders. Back to the problem that has plagued bereaved parents, where coroners underestimate the speed necessary to preserve data, or the scope and importance of information that might be preserved in this way. This is not a criticism of coroners. It is far beyond the experience of professionals across all domains. To understand the range of online material available or its aethereal nature.

My second issue with the government amendment is that it has chosen to reduce the length of time that data is preserved from a year to six months, the preservation notice from a year to six months, and I did discuss it with officials earlier today, and I understand that it is extendable, but both I and Ellen, room, bereaved mother of jewels, feel it is not long enough. 45% of inquests take longer than six months, 18% take more than a year.

Reducing the time is deliberately creating a weakness in the system. At a time when parents need support and must not be anxious. Watching the clock don't clock going down and worry if somewhere someone, somewhere in the system will fail to extend the preservation order. My Lords, there is also an ongoing issue with conflicts between our laws and those in the US. I received a letter from Minister Narayan this week, updating me about the conflict between section 101 of the Online Safety Act and the US Stored Communications Act, the letter said.

I quote interpretation of the Stored Communications Act is not settled. There may be some variety between different US states and discussions between DSIT, Ofcom and service providers are taking place to find a path forward. And my Lords, this regime depends entirely on resolving this issue. We were promised from the Dispatch Box that this was a priority for DSIT nearly two years ago, when the previous government was in power. It was not done then and it is still not resolved.

And the letter did not mention anything about discussions between government Ministers and their counterparts in the US, upon which this finally depends, and I hope the Minister is not surprised at the level of frustration felt by bereaved parents at the lack of speed with which this issue has been pursued. My Lords, the government has put out a press release. They have made assurances to bereaved parents and now we are here at a time of night at which no vote can reasonably take place.

So I would like the noble Lady, the Minister, to offer to bring back tighter wording at three reading. I believe it's necessary and it's what parents are expecting. And even if she is not able to make that commitment tonight, it is what should happen. And I ask her to try and make it happen. It has been promised and I believe it must be delivered. And my Lords, I don't intend to pursue my amendment 405, but just simply ask the noble Lady to put on the record how we are going to inform how the police will be better informed of this regime, and I wish to finish by paying tribute to all the bereaved families who campaigned for this change.

Joule's law. This change to tonight and the amendments that preceded it. We in this House are witness to your pain and to your generosity in campaigning, so that others do not suffer as you have done. And I wish to remind the government of what one father said the day before committee, and I quote him. I was happy with the meeting with Liz Kendall until I realised it was the same exact meeting I had with Peter Kyle the year before.

Nothing had changed except the size of the room. To accommodate the increased number of bereaved parents. My Lords, there is a crisis unfolding. It is a crisis that government is not grasping. Sorting out this amendment is not enough, but it must be done. I beg to move.

22:56

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause >> Amendment proposed after clause 1H2 insert the new clause set out on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. I rise to speak on this vital group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, concerning the investigation of child deaths, to which I've been very pleased to add my name, and I think we all absolutely acknowledge that the noble Baroness has been tireless in her campaign and in her support for the bereaved parents, and I think she's no less eloquent or The of light provided by the Minister, the noble Baroness Levitt, in committee in the movement represented by Government Amendments 429A and 45454A are very welcome.

However, my Lords, on these benches we. Question, like the noble Baroness, whether these are as comprehensive as the solutions proposed in her amendments. The government amendments are substantive concessions regarding the principle of automatic data preservation, but they fall short of the immediate statutory certainty and the proactive and proactive coronial and police duties sought by the noble Baroness to ensure a comprehensive investigation into digital harms. So, my Lords, while I welcome the government's agreement in principle to make Dpns automatic, their current drafting often leans on secondary legislation and future consultations.

These amendments place the duty firmly on the face of the Bill, providing the immediate legal certainty that bereaved families deserve in 2026. Perhaps the most critical missing piece in the government's current approach is addressed by amendment 404, which requires the police to investigate digital harm as a primary line of inquiry as a matter of routine. We cannot treat the digital environment as secondary to the physical. If a child is found harmed in a public park, the police don't wait for a consultation to decide whether to check the CCTV.

Yet when a child dies in circumstances which may involve social media, digital forensics is often treated as an afterthought or as a secondary consideration. So, my Lords, the noble Baroness Kidron's additional amendments should not be controversial. They should be accepted, fast tracked and robustly enforced. And I urge the Minister to take these on board

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. My Lords, I too will speak very briefly, given the hour, but I was briefly, given the hour, but I was also pleased to add my name to also pleased to add my name to amendment 431 in particular, if I may, for the benefit of Hansard. I think the noble Lady, Baroness think the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, referred to 404, but I think she was talking about 431. Anyway, I'm going to try and talk about 431. I agree with everything

22:59

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

the noble Lady said in her opening the noble Lady said in her opening remarks, but I too want to focus on subsection 4.1 in the Government's subsection 4.1 in the Government's Amendment 429A, which reduces the time for which data would be time for which data would be preserved from six months sorry, from 12 months to six months. And I've been given to understand that part of the reason for that is because of the e r and the need to respect the privacy of those concerned, but I think it leaves us bereaved parents in an unsatisfactory situation.

And I wondered why the government did it this way round, why there couldn't be a mechanism for automatically deleting any data the minute that the inquest was completed and the data was no longer needed. Rather than putting pressure on coroners to have to extend and apply for an extension of the notices. So I'd be grateful if the noble Lady could consider that, like the noble Baroness Lady Kidron, I'd like to urge the Minister to consider coming back at Third Reading and with the extension back to 12 months, to reassure the parents who've lost their children that others won't have the stress and anxiety that the time the government is offering is inadequate.

And I know that. That Ellen Room, who Baroness Kidron referred to, would very much appreciate a meeting with the Minister, which myself and perhaps Lady Kidron could also join just to talk through these points in detail, and, if I may, on her behalf, she wrote to the Attorney General at the beginning of December with an application to reopen the inquest into her son's death, which I think lasted less than half an hour. She still received only a notification that it's under consideration.

Could I plead with the noble Lady, the Minister, that she should get a decent and respectful reply as quickly as possible? Hey!

23:01

Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I won't detain the house at this hour. I wanted to both thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for the progress that the government has made on this since we spoke about it at committee. I we spoke about it at committee. I think it really is a step forward. However, like other noble Lords, I'd like to urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to just go a little bit further and if she could possibly address the issues raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, that would be fantastic, and I hope she'll have good news for us when Shawcross.

23:02

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

Can I begin by placing on record my gratitude for the all noble my gratitude for the all noble Lords who have led the campaign for this important issue, none more so than the noble Lady Kidron, who has so ably championed this cause. My Lords, I think it self-evident that we all acknowledge the harm that phones and social media are doing to our youth. I speak as a father of teenage children who are grappling with these very issues day to day.

This is most tragically brought to the fore when they lead to the death of children. Parents who face this unimaginable tragedy should be able to know what it was their child was accessing, and the evidence from these awful incidents should prove to the general public that steps have to be taken. My Lords, I see no argument why the police should not be required to collect evidence relating to potential digital harm, as indeed they are required to do for general causes of death.

Similarly, if social media has in part led to the death of a child, then the bare minimum that providers should do is to retain the data relating to the victim. I also express gratitude to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for considering the arguments raised at committee and acting upon this. I understand that many in your Lordships House do not believe that amendment 49 goes far enough, and that it does not place the desired duties upon upon police forces.

However, I do welcome at least the start that this represents. My Lords, there is a tension, I fear, between what the government is doing in this. In your Lordships House, rightfully making concessions on the issue, but at the same time. In the other place, voting against further protections to online harms the Minister, noble Baroness, the Minister's amendment today places duties on providers. It is a short step from mandating data retention to enforcing age limits. This is not the time for that debate in its entirety, but it is worth putting on the record.

Can I conclude by reiterating my gratitude to all members of your Lordships House who have campaigned on this important matter?

23:04

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

Well said Lord Cameron. >> Well said Lord Cameron. >> My Lords, the government is and remains grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, and to the Baroness Kidron, and to the bereaved families who raised concerns about the effectiveness of the existing framework for the the existing framework for the preservation of online material that may be relevant to understanding a child's death. I'd like to reiterate, as I said at Committee stage, that the loss of any child is a profound tragedy and the government is clear that we must take every possible step to safeguard children online.

And I want to pay tribute to all of the campaigners on this issue. And of course, I'd be delighted to see Ellen Room. I had the opportunity of meeting her very briefly. She was introduced to me by the noble Lady, Baroness Shawcross Wilson. I think outside here. But if we can organise something formally, of course, and to include the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, as well as noble Lady Baroness Barron, I will do what I can to find out what's happening. About the reply, about the inquest.

Obviously I can't stand here and commit my noble friend, the Attorney General, to anything, but I will do what I can to find out what's happening about it. So I promised at Committee stage that the government would consider how that framework could be amended to ensure that data preservation is applied consistently and as quickly as possible. And we have we listened and we've acted, and I am delighted today to be bringing forward government amendments. 49 A 454 A and 467AB, which require speedy data preservation in every case involving the death of a child aged five or above.

The only exceptions to this will be where the child's online activity is clearly irrelevant to their death, or an investigation is plainly not necessary. I am very grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, for her constructive engagement on the development of this provision. Our most recent meeting was this afternoon, where we did our best to move things forward. I'll come to that in a moment, but as I've emphasized to her, the government's firm intention is that a DPN request becomes the default and it should be made in every case, unless the coroner is very clear from the outset that online data is not relevant to a child's death, and we will ensure that this expectation is clearly set out in the explanatory notes to the new provision.

And I will write to the Chief Coroner asking her to consider issuing guidance for coroners on the application of the mandatory requirement and, crucially, the circumstances in which an exception may be appropriate. My Lords, the government thought we had done enough. We thought that we had done what was wanted us because we all agreed with the objectives. I know the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, has reservations. I understand her reservations. I hope that we can continue to discuss it so that we can reach a position where everybody is happy, that we're doing what it is that we set out to do.

As far as the time limit is concerned, this now mandatory policy will entail the preservation of a much greater volume of data, including that of third parties, than at present, because it will sweep up as it preserves the data relating to the dead child, it will also sweep up those on the other end of the interaction. So it's the third parties that are the issue here. So in order to ensure that it's proportionate, we're therefore reducing the initial retention period, not the overall retention period.

The initial retention period to six months, which in the majority of cases should provide sufficient time for the coroner to decide whether the online evidence is relevant or not. It's not related to where the when the inquest takes place, because the coroner's will start working on this long before the inquest actually opens. It's simply putting it in place that they have time to make the decision, and there is a provision to extend it. The coroner doesn't have to apply to extend it.

They simply have to decide to extend it. It's much simpler than that. So that more time can be secured by the coroner. If it isn't yet clear. We will work with the chief coroner and operational partners to ensure that coroners are clear that a positive decision is needed at the six month point on whether or not to extend the DPN, and that if there is any doubt, the default position should be to extend the DPN to ensure that the data is preserved until the inquest.

These amendments also make a minor change to the existing regulation making power in section 101 of the Online Safety Act, so that regulations. Setting out the kinds of services that will automatically receive a DPN can refer to ongoing research. That means they're going to remain current and capture any new and emerging services that become popular with children. Turning now to amendments 4.31 and 4.32 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron. These basically, as we are all aware, give effect to the same issues as the government amendments, but they do include preserving data where online activity is not relevant to a child's death.

The reason of the difference is the government's amendments carve this out to reduce delay and diverting resources away from relevant cases. And for that reason, we can't accept the noble Lady's amendments four, 321 and 432, because they would require disproportionate retention of third party data, which would risk breaching article eight. Finally, and briefly turning to amendments 404 and the consequential amendment 405, also in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, we agree that it's essential that the police both understand the powers available to them and use those powers can use them consistently to access all relevant information when investigating these cases, including digital material or content held on social media platforms.

I think it's a noble Lady knows the National Police Chiefs Council is developing guidance to improve awareness and to promote promote uniform use of these powers, and the Home Office is committed to working with the police on this issue. I know how concerned your Lordships House is about the pace of change in some of these newer technologies, and that's exactly why for guidance to remain practical and effective, it must be able to evolve alongside the fast changing technological developments and legal frameworks.

And that's why I think it's preferable not to set this guidance all its detail, into primary legislation, but instead to continue working with the police to ensure this guidance is delivered A soon and B to a high standard. So for the reasons I've set out, I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendments. I thank her again. And to all other noble Lords who have spoken for the collaboration and engagement on this important issue, and I beg to move.

23:11

Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)

- -

I want to thank all noble Lords who've supported this, not just tonight, but but on previous occasions. And and let me thank the noble Lady, the Minister. We were looking earlier this afternoon for the perfect words. And when she stood up, she said, clearly irrelevant to the death of a child. And that would have been the perfect phrase to have on the face of the bill. I say it on the record. Maybe she can come back with a surprise at Third Reading, but I do very much appreciate the work of the department.

I very much appreciate meeting us where where the government has met us. And I accept the point of the police. I will say for one final time, unfortunately, we've been around this three times. If this doesn't work, we will be back again with fury. I beg leave to withdraw, sir, your Lordship's. Prejudice amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 405, Baroness Kidron not moved. Amendment 406. Baroness cash not moved. Amendment 407. Baroness cash not moved.

Amendment 408. Lord Paddington.

23:12

Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)

- -

I rise to support amendment 408 in my name. Before I go into detail, in my name. Before I go into detail, I'd just like to thank the Police Federation of England and Wales for their tireless work on this issue. If we are serious about the police covenant, then we must be serious about the well-being of those who serve. We cannot claim to support officers and staff while failing even to measure properly the most tragic outcomes of mental health. This amendment is rooted in a simple principle.

What is measured is what is acted upon. At present, the collection of data on suicides and attempted suicides in policing is too inconsistent and too limited. Without clear national data, patterns are missed, warning signs are overlooked and opportunities to save lives are lost. This amendment will require proper annual reporting to Parliament, forced by force data and analysis of occupational stress points. This matters because policing places extraordinary pressures on people. Trauma, long hours, operational strain and repeated exposure to distress.

We need evidence based data, not just warm words. The amendment also strengthens accountability. Chief Constable's would have to certify compliance. H m I c f r s would be alerted where forces fell short, and independent Advisory Board would help to drive best practice. That means this is not just about getting figures, gathering data. It's about making sure that those figures are acted upon. Finally, behind every statistic is a human being, an officer, a staff member, a family member, a team member left grieving and asking whether more could have been done.

This amendment will help us understand the scale of the problem, improve prevention and honour the spirit of the police covenant by protecting those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect us. I beg to move. Unopposed after clause 182. Insert the following new clause. Insert the following new clause. Police covenant mandatory reporting on suicide and attempted suicide as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the master list. My Lords, both these amendments highlight a serious issue in policing. Many officers and staff are under extreme strain and we are are under extreme strain and we are not systematically measuring the scale of the problem. We support Lord Bailey's proposal for mandatory recording and reporting of suicides and serious suicide attempts, as backed by the Police Federation. Whether through his amendment or amendment 409, it's important that we act now to bring this problem into clear view so that we can assess the risks and protect officers welfare as we would any other occupational hazard.

It's therefore necessary to place a legal duty on forces and on the Home Office to record these incidents and publish the figures so that appropriate support and interventions can be designed and responsibility for preventable loss of life can be properly examined. The police service rightly places

23:16

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

emphasis on officer well-being, but these amendments would take a further step by increasing further step by increasing transparency so that we can understand what's happening to those who carry some of society's heaviest psychological demands. My Lord's police officers are often Lord's police officers are often the first to assist people in mental health crises, but we must mental health crises, but we must also ensure that their own welfare is addressed. As my noble friend Lady Brinton observed at committee, policing has often relied on signposting staff to external organisations rather than building internal support that's tailored to their needs.

First, however, we must remedy the lack of consistent data across forces a unified system for collecting and publishing mental health metrics would allow targeted, evidence based support that is both timely and preventative. I hope in this instance, the Minister will recognise the importance of a clear duty to measure and report these outcomes as the basis for any well-being.

23:17

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Yes. My Lords, this group of >> Yes. My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important issue of mental health and well-being for those serving in well-being for those serving in police forces. Amendment 408 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey, and amendment 409. In the name of the noble Lord. Lord Hogan-Howe seek to improve the collection and publication of data relating to suicide and attempted suicide amongst police officers and police staff. The intention behind them is clear if we are serious about supporting the well-being of those who serve in policing, we must first ensure that we properly understand the scale and nature of the challenges that they face.

Policing is a profession that places extraordinary demands on those who undertake it. Officers and staff routinely encounter traumatic, traumatic incidents and cumulative stress that comes from protecting the public in difficult circumstances, and I can personally vouch for that. Whilst the vast majority serve with resilience and dedication, it is also clear that these pressures can have a profound effect on mental health. And during my noble friend Lord Bailey spoke movingly about the importance of ensuring that the police covenant is underpinned by robust evidence.

Without reliable national data, it is difficult to identify patterns, understand risk factors, or evaluate whether the support structures currently in place are working as intended. The same point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who emphasized the better data is essential if we are to design effective prevention strategies. There is already recognition across policing on the need to strengthen the evidence base in this area, and work is underway through national policing bodies to improve the collection of welfare data.

However, the amendments before the House highlight the importance of ensuring that this work is transparent and capable of informing meaningful action. Ultimately, the Police Covenant reflects our collective commitment to those who protect the public, ensuring that we understand and address the mental health risks faced by officers and staff is central to that commitment. For those reasons, this group of amendments raises issues that the government should give. I believe very careful consideration. So I look forward to what the noble Lord the Minister, has to say in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington and the noble Bailey of Paddington and the noble Lord Hogan-Howe for tabling the amendment, and I'm conscious of the amendment, and I'm conscious of the fact that the noble Lady, Baroness Doocey, and the noble Lord Davis, have both supported as well the have both supported as well the general direction of travel of the amendment. I just want to say to the noble Lord Bailey, first of all, the noble Lord Bailey, first of all, that suicide and attempted suicide within the police workforce does have devastating consequences.

I and the government recognise fully the need to address both mental health and wellbeing in policing seriously and responsibly. He will know that the National Police Wellbeing Service already do vital work in tackling suicide risk to the police workforce, including work on prevention Postvention support to forces to 24 over seven mental health crisis line for anyone working in policing and indeed specialist trauma services. But I just would in and I'm grateful as well, if I may say so, for the way in which he's framed his amendment and brought his amendment forward today.

But I just say to him, respectfully, that placing an additional statutory reporting duty in primary legislation is not, I feel, the right approach at this time. And I say that for for three broad reasons. Firstly, much of the information sought by the amendments, particularly in relation to attempted suicide, is often clinical, confidential medical data. In many cases, it cannot be lawfully or ethically shared with employers, and mandating this through primary legislation would be the wrong approach and risks unintended consequences of confidentiality, trust and data integrity.

And that's a really significant blockage, in my view, in the amendment to date. Secondly, I just want to reassure him again that the absence of legislation doesn't mean the absence of action. It's a really important point. Police forces already collect data on deaths by suicide. There is national coordination of that data, and the challenge is not getting forces to comply. But what we ask for from forces, how it's defined and most importantly, how it's used to drive meaningful prevention. And again, I just look forward to the future when we're looking at a revised National Police Service downstream following the White Paper, where training wellbeing personnel functions are brought into the centre, where there's a smaller number of police forces on the ground, there will be a real focus on this, and I know that it's important to do that.

And thirdly, I just don't want to be locked into a rigid framework before necessary. Clinical, operational and ethical questions have been resolved. This is not just simply a matter of reporting. It also requires high quality support. And I think particularly, and I think the noble Lord will accept this, it demands a culture that understands that mental health challenges are there in police forces. Police officers see some horrendous things on the ground. They have, you know, really hard experiences. They're very often traumatized.

And it's important that we embed in the culture of the police force how we respond to those issues. It's not simply about collecting the statistics. I you know, I know that's his his prime motivation, but ultimately it should be about having an automatic embedded culture that recognizes the stresses, recognizes the strains, helps identify them, and then puts measures in place to help people with their mental health. That's why the government is focusing its efforts on strengthening wellbeing support, trauma care, early intervention in the police White Paper and why my colleague Minister, the Minister directly responsible for policing and crime, has engaged with police leaders, staff associations and experts to look at how we can improve the quality of the data but more importantly, the quality of preventative action.

And I myself had a useful discussion, as it happens at my party conference with the Police Federation in Liverpool in October of last year, and we we understand that there's a real issue to help support, but I don't believe that the amendments before the House on report today are the right solution at this stage. So I hope that with the recognition of the problem and with a grateful, you know, Minister who says to the noble Lord, thank you for bringing this issue forward.

I hope he will still, on the basis of what I've said, withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response and the Minister, for his response and nature of response. And I and I truly do believe the government are beginning to focus on this issue. beginning to focus on this issue. This is a long lasting issue. My slight pushback and challenge would be around embedding of a culture, be around embedding of a culture, an organization that is so big and so diverse in its in its approach so diverse in its in its approach to this, this problem, many forces don't collect the figures and certainly couldn't provide them.

When asked for the figures by the Police Federation. Hence, I think why we need to ask them officially, because you are correct. We need to embed that culture. But by asking for those figures, we. We build a mechanism that embeds that culture. But in view of the minister's very generous approach to, to, to this subject and my belief that the government truly are beginning to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

focus on this, I will withdraw my motion. It's a pleasure this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 409, Lord Hogan-Howe not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hogan-Howe not moved. Amendment 409. A Baroness Smith of vice. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 409 A and 409 B concerning the devolution of policing and youth justice to Wales. These are the same amendments that I tabled in committee, and I will

23:25

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)

- -

keep my remarks brief this evening, considering it is a late hour, but I hope the Minister can provide further clarity because the questions raised at committee questions raised at committee remain unanswered. Not long after committee, the Police Reform White Paper was published. There are some Paper was published. There are some good things in it, particularly the focus on neighbourhood policing. focus on neighbourhood policing. However, the White Paper does not address the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations at that time.

The Minister stated that the white papers proposals for Wales concern organisation rather than devolution, and that devolving policing is not right for Wales at this time. But respectfully, if we are reorganizing the whole system, this would seem precisely the moment to align responsibility with accountability through devolution. The abolition of pqs fundamentally reshapes the governance of policing in England. Functions will move to mayoral authorities, yet Wales has no equivalent structures. It is logical that the Welsh Government should be part of the answer, whatever that answer is to that newly created gap.

Yet we still don't know what model the government envisage for Welsh Police governance. Whether devolution of policing remains even under consideration, despite consistent recommendations from independent commissions, and how Welsh financial contributions, already substantial, will be recognised in 20 2425, only around 43% of policing expenditure in Wales came from the UK government. The remainder came from Welsh Government contributions and council tax. This remains a reserved matter in which the UK government retain that decision making power.

Yet whilst citizens already fund most of their policing and now on youth justice, I welcome the Minister's confirmation that work is underway on the manifesto commitment that they have themselves as the noble Lord, Lord Hain noted at committee. Wales child first approach has helped drive a sharp and sustained fall in first time entrants over many years. He also highlighted that children in conflict with the law often have overlapping needs, and that the jagged edge of the current settlement can impede the joined up support for those children that they require.

Crucially, many of us have argued that youth justice is a contained, high impact area where devolution would be both feasible and important, demonstrating that new intergovernmental respect and cooperation. The Minister has previously referred to a programme of work in relation to youth justice. So today I would like to find out more in relation to the progress of this. So what is its scope, when conclusions will be reached and whether legislative change is anticipated, through which vehicle and on what timetable? Without this detail, Parliament cannot scrutinise the direction of travel.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have full responsibility for policing and Justice Wales remains the outlier. So, my Lords, I'm not asking the House to decide on these matters today. I'm asking the government to provide the clarity that Wales deserves. When will proposals on Welsh Police governance be published? What is the timetable for decisions on youth justice, devolution and how will accountability be secured for systems largely funded in Wales but not yet controlled in Wales? I look forward to the Minister's response

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the end of the debate. I beg to move the. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 182 insert the following new clause. Policing devolution to Wales as printed on the bottle list.

23:30

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)

- -

>> When we had a debate at Committee stage, Wales was squeezed Committee stage, Wales was squeezed into the very short time we had on the Thursday afternoon before a debate had to start. It's no one's fault that Wales is being squeezed again. It is now 11:30 at night and there are serious. It's no one's fault. I'm not blaming anyone. It's the way the cookie has crumbled and it seems to me that actually what we want is a proper debate.

And what the Minister said on the last occasion in inviting the noble Baroness to bring her amendments back, he promised a fuller debate. Well, at this hour of night, I don't really think this is sensible, but what I would do is to say two things. First of all, as the parliamentary process seems to produce no proper forum for the discussion of these serious issues and the. The Minister said he had very serious arguments to support the devolution of policing.

Could I ask him, will he agree to have a proper meeting about these things so we can look at how policing has operated in Scotland, Northern Ireland, to the benefit of those two nations and how it could benefit for Wales. Secondly, why is Wales treated as if justice was an island that was removed from Wales? Justice is not an island. It is an integral part of policy and separating out areas of justice from the rest of internal affairs is almost, I think, unique to Wales in a self-governing nation across the world.

But on the two particular matters, I don't want to add much about policing, but I want to say just one word about youth justice. Since the debate at the Committee stage, the government published a youth justice paper, a Modern Youth Justice System Foundations, and if I may say so with genuine respect, and I put that in because sometimes it's said of lawyers, when they say with respect, they mean without any respect at all, but with genuine respect to what? To the foreword written by the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Minister for justice, he presents an irrefutable argument for the way in which youth justice must be properly aligned with other services.

But what is fascinating about that paper is there is not a single word about what is to happen to youth justice in Wales. There are excellent arguments as to what is to happen in England, and I won't. I was had we had a debate at a sensible. Are going to wary or Lordships, I hope not unduly, by looking at the arguments so powerfully made by the Deputy Prime Minister. But this is not the time to embark on that argument.

I will weary you unduly at this hour of night. But what I would hope is that, as in the first debate of the Report stage, the noble Lord, the Minister rightly emphasized how important it was that the government stuck to its manifesto commitments when emphasizing why we had to have a respect order in the face of a powerful argument that actually didn't add anything to what we already said. He said. This was a manifesto commitment. I do hope you'll be able to explain the manifesto commitment to look at youth justice and the devolution of youth justice and say what is to be done.

I find it very disappointing when listening to the evidence of the Welsh, the one of the Welsh Ministers, Mr. Irranca-davies, of the Senate legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, when he was asked repeatedly about youth justice, he said that discussions were going on, that they were working hard. But he hoped. But he couldn't say anything of any detail, but hoped they'd be able to do something soon. I very much hope two things. First, the Minister and those who take a different view can have the opportunity for a robust argument so we can see what each side says, because the report that was written by the Silk Commission, the chairman and the report that was written by the commission I chaired, and the report of the Ryan Williams Commission, all have argued for the devolution of both of these, and no one has ever presented an argument as to why they are right, not why they are wrong.

It just seems to me that a robust discussion would be the best way forward. But I hope tonight that the Minister is able to explain how they intend to honour the manifesto commitment and how the logic, the powerful logic of the Deputy Prime Minister's arguments can be applied not merely to England, though I accept here, of course, it is most important that they apply to England, but also how they're to be applied to Wales. Yes.

23:36

Lord Jones of Penybont (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. >> The noble Lord. The Minister will know that when I was First Minister of Wales, I strongly supported the devolution of policing and my position has not changed. I fail to see why Wales alone, of the four nations of the alone, of the four nations of the UK, should not have the powers to shape policing and policing priorities. I've heard arguments about crime being cross-border. Well, that's true of England and Scotland as well, and indeed Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for that matter.

Simple cooperation between police forces is a way of overcoming that. And I saw that in 2013 when we had the NATO summit in Newport, there were police officers from all over the UK who had come to help the police. That event. Now, the noble Lord, the Minister, will be relieved, I'm sure, to know that I'm not looking for him to agree with me tonight. I know the view of the UK government that currently policing should not be devolved in Wales, but nevertheless we do now have a lack of clarity as to the future because with the abolition of the PCC, the suggestions that have been made about the way that policing will be made accountable in the future are based on English political structures that don't exist in Wales.

We don't yet know what will happen in Wales, and that is important because there are arguments, of course, that we have to make to make sure that Wales is properly recognised. Wales has its own civil contingency forum has its own language, it has its own laws, it has its own ways of policing that must be reflected in the future. With that in mind, would the Minister, noble or the Minister agree with me that a way has to be found to take this forward? Would he agree to to meet with, with me and perhaps with others to see how we can deliver better policing? That nevertheless reflects Wales's national distinctiveness? Very briefly on the other amendment.

400 and 9BI have a personal interest in this. This was a recommendation that came from the Brown Commission, of which I was a part. I fully support the devolution. Naturally, then, of youth justice. I was delighted to see this included in the manifesto the government was elected on in 2024, and I look forward to its delivery.

23:38

Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)

- -

And my Lords, when my noble friend was the First Minister and friend was the First Minister and then slightly before when I was the Secretary of State, I was less of a campaigner for this issue than he campaigner for this issue than he was. But I do recognise that times have changed, of course, over the last few years. I am told that devolution is a process rather than an event, something which I witnessed myself over the last 20 odd years I've been involved in in Welsh politics at a ministerial level.

But there are 2 or 3 things which have occurred in literally within the last year or so, which does mean that we have to bend our minds to something which I wasn't all that keen on all those years ago. First of all, as my noble friend has said, our manifesto for the Labour Party indicated that youth justice and probation were to be now a matter for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Senate. Like my noble friend, I was a member of the Gordon Brown's Commission and that was something all of us agreed on, and I look forward to my noble friend the minister's response on those specific issues, which we mustn't forget on the issue of police in general and the devolution of policing, there was a view over a number of years that it was quite hard to devolve policing without devolving criminal justice, and the noble Lady referred to Scotland and to Northern Ireland.

Scotland, of course, historically has had both over many centuries. Northern Ireland hasn't. It did, and then it didn't. After the collapse of the first Stormont arrangement. Indeed, when I was Northern Ireland Secretary, I held responsibility for criminal justice and for policing until the Good Friday Agreement made the difference by recommending that both those issues should eventually be devolved to Northern Ireland, which indeed they have, and very successfully too. But two things have occurred over the last week, few weeks really. One was my noble friend.

The Minister came to this chamber and told us that the police and crime commissioners were to be abolished, something I do not think was in the manifesto, but with which I entirely concur. However, if you're going to abolish, as we are police and crime commissioners, then the responsibility for accountability has to lie with somebody. Now in England, it's mayors and the new organisations which will follow the devolution bill. But in Wales there are no such institutions, there's no mayors, there's no local authorities which now are have a responsibility for policing.

And so we really have to find out what happens when that bill goes through with regard to Wales. And so it does make us think more about the issue of general police devolution. And secondly, of course, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has now decided in the White Paper on policing that there are going to be far fewer police authorities and police boards in England. What happens then? Do we have the abolition of the current four police forces in Wales? Do we have two? Do we have one police force for the whole of Wales? I don't know, but obviously it's going to change if this White Paper affects Wales as much as England.

And so those two things mean that we have to bend our minds to what we do about policing in the months ahead. Those months ahead, of course, are inevitably going to be complicated by the fact that in 60 days time there's going to be an election in Wales, the outcome of which none of us know. But undoubtedly it will be something we'll have to deal with in a rather different way than we have over the past number of years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, given the hour, my contribution to this debate will be contribution to this debate will be a short one. Can I first apologise to your Lordships for not having spoken to similar amendments on spoken to similar amendments on this subject at Committee stage because of illness, and express my gratitude to my noble friend, Baroness Brinton, who is no longer

23:42

Baroness Humphreys (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Baroness Brinton, who is no longer in her place for taking my place on that occasion. My thanks also to the noble Lady, Baroness Smith of Sunrise, for bringing the amendments in this group backwards for debate for this report. Stage of the Bill on these benches. We agree with both amendments. 409 A on the devolution of policing and amendments. 409 B on the devolution of youth justice, which are in line with both Welsh Liberal Democrats and our federal Liberal Democrat policies.

Had this debate taken place at an earlier hour, we would have joined the noble Lady in the voting lobby. I'd like to speak very briefly to the issue of youth justice, which was seen as an early candidate for phased devolution. The Welsh Government has been able to influence youth justice policy through devolved areas such as education, health and social services, and has established a youth justice system that prioritises prevention, rehabilitation and the rights of children over punitive measures, according to a research document published in January this year.

The Welsh Government has said that it had agreed with the UK government for officials in both governments to work together to explore options where responsibilities in the youth justice system could be realigned. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Kung, referred to earlier. So can I ask what progress has been made there? But despite this and other other affirmative statements, the Senate Equality and Social Justice Committee warned last year that the UK government could roll back its promises on the devolution of youth justice to Wales and my Lords disappointingly experiences showing us that this is what appears to be happening in that context.

Yesterday's leaked document, which reveals the Prime Minister's advice to his UK Ministers to be prepared to go against the wishes of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland governments when taking decisions, albeit in financial matters. I will agree, but it speaks volumes about the attitude towards the devolved nations, my Lord, with the reality of May's Senate elections on the horizon, it seems that very little progress will be made on this issue. In the short term. I hope the next Welsh Government, which I hope is a progressive one, continues to pursue further devolution, including the devolution of policing and youth justice, and I can assure them in advance of the continued support of these benches.

23:46

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Thank you. Baroness, Baroness Smith of Llanfoist, for bringing forward amendments. 449 B which raised the question of devolving policing and youth justice to Wales. As discussed at committee, these discussed at committee, these amendments engage an important constitutional issue about the structure of the devolution settlement, and it was argued that devolving these responsibilities could allow them to sit alongside other public services already devolved to the Welsh Government, such as education and health. However, as was also noted, these matters currently form part of a single legal jurisdiction covering England and Wales.

Policing and youth justice operate within that shared framework, which supports cooperation between forces and national capability across the system. Changes of the scale proposed here would represent a significant constitutional shift and my Lords, a matter of such importance cannot properly be considered through two amendments to an ever growing policing Bill, and indeed, I agree with the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Concur. He's absolutely right that this certainly requires more time. My Lords, it would require a broader, more fundamental discussion about the future structure of the devolution settlement, which, in respect of policing, we on this side, I'm afraid, would resist.

I look forward to the noble Lords remarks here.

23:48

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Here. Lord David. >> I'm grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Smith, of advice for returning to the issue at report. returning to the issue at report. It's a very strange situation that we find ourselves in today, where the noble Lady moves the amendment and resides in Wales, where the shadow Minister was a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales, and where the government Minister is a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales. So we are having a bit of a Welsh fest today where every member who spoke had also resides in Wales.

And apologies to my noble friends for keeping them here on this Welsh discussion, which again I have to say to the noble Lady, I regret it being this late in the evening, a slightly out of my control because of the way in which the debates have fallen. And as has been seen in the debate, there are a number of different views. And within Wales there are a number of different views on this matter. The government is still of the view and of and the position remains clear that policing operates effectively within a single integrated England and Wales criminal justice system.

And that is really important that we examine that now. As my noble friend Lord Murphy of Turbine mentioned, and indeed my noble friend Lord Jones of Penybont, there is a lot going on in the policing world at the moment, not just in Wales, but also in England. There will be legislation to abolish police and crime commissioners. There will be an examination of the model for the replacement and as has been said, that model will include the mayoral model in England but also a local authority model.

And we've given a very strong commitment that in the review that is being undertaken pending the legislation that will come before this House, when parliamentary time allows to abolish police and crime commissioners, that the the structures in Wales will be one for discussion. We have a review of the number of police forces currently at 43. That review will be undertaken in the next few months, will be completed in the summer, and there will be significant engagement with the Senate, with Welsh Police forces, with the current police and crime commissioners, with Welsh Members of Parliament, and with anybody else who wishes to have a view on what the format should be in relation to any revised structure in Wales.

Self-evidently, there are a number of options there. The existing four police forces, a small number of police forces, a single police force and the different types of governance structure that could be put in place. That will be part of the discussion that is undertaken. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to go to the the question that the noble Lord. Yeah, certainly. I'm very grateful, following

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful, following what you were saying with a lot of interest, because it's responds to the numerous points that have been the numerous points that have been made about the reorganization that's needed at this point in time to make sure there's no vacuum to make sure there's no vacuum there. The point I would press on him is the fact that we have an election for the Senate coming up election for the Senate coming up in May, and trying to get a coherent discussion and debate and conclusion at this point in time becomes extremely awkward.

It would be very good if it could be started immediately. Now, before we find ourselves in the middle of an election and with the intention of bringing everybody on board very rapidly afterwards. But he will understand the challenges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, I fully do, and the the the review that's being undertaken the review that's being undertaken of four sizes throughout the whole of England and Wales being undertaken now is commencing very undertaken now is commencing very shortly. The terms of reference, if not public already, will be very not public already, will be very shortly. And the impulse of the Senate, the political parties, Senate, the political parties, current administration, opposition administration, potentially in the Senate, is is absolutely valid to that discussion.

And what we want to try and do is at the end of that period, is to have an understanding of what the preferred models are by negotiation and discussion on issues such as force, size and governance. And that's really important because there has to be legislation at some point to abolish police and crime commissioners, and in doing that, there'll be opportunities to discuss that for size and governance accordingly. I just want to take up, if I may, Lord Thomas's suggestion of a meeting.

I'm very happy to have a meeting with any of the colleagues who have spoken today. It may be more appropriate that we do that with either the review team for the for size and current structures, or it may be worthwhile doing it with the direct police Minister. But what I will do is reflect on that request and get back to the noble Lord in a sensible hour to determine how we. How we undertake that. But I also say, and I understand as well, that the support from the noble Baroness Humphries again, who again, another reason residents of Wales, speaking from effectively the front bench in this case on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

These are issues which I've put down the principle. The government does not believe this reorganisation is about devolution. That's the principle. We have different views on that, but that is the principle of where we are. But there are issues to look at for size and governance, which are for discussion, to get the best deal for Wales and not to cause us. The noble Lord Wigley has said any interregnum in service at that time and I will be engaged. I think I plan to meet some new police officers in Wales shortly.

I will be engaged as someone who has an interest in that matter as well for for this House, but it's one that I say the cross system currently provides operational resilience, shared capability, strong cross-border cooperation, and we do not believe fragmenting it would improve outcomes for victims or communities. That's the government's position. There's an honest disagreement here, but there are still issues that need to be resolved as we go forward. Now, on the issue of youth justice, which has been mentioned in the debate, it is true that the Ministry of Justice is working constructively with the Welsh Government on delivery and oversight arrangements.

The manifesto committed to consider devolution of youth justice. That work is underway. Consideration does not equate to immediate legislative change, which is why I can't accept it in the Bill today. No decision has been taken to devolve youth justice through this bill, but that work is underway. And again, it is a complex issue where we want to get the best outcomes. But I think, you know that that is the position, and I hope that, again, the noble Baroness can accept that in the context that I've put it to her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. OK. In regards to the setting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. In regards to the setting out of a timeline of looking ahead at a future, I suppose, legislative at a future, I suppose, legislative vehicle for progressing with devolving youth justice, does does the noble Lord have a specific timeline in mind? And at what stage timeline in mind? And at what stage of this program has the government got to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't give the noble Lady a timeline or a commentary on that discussion, but what I can say is discussion, but what I can say is what I have said already is that work is underway. Now that's not you know, we're this government is elected for a five year parliament. Work is underway. I simply say to Work is underway. I simply say to her that that's what I can say to her today. She will test us again. Undoubtedly. And questions and debates.

There's opportunities for short debates. There's opportunities for questions. There's legislative scrutiny. Whenever any legislation is brought forward on the question of police and crime commissioners. But today, I say to her, with the principal position the government's taken, I can't accept any amendments on on devolution. I can't accept any amendments on youth justice. But I hope I've said to her and to other members who are interested that there is a process underway on the question of the structures and governance in Wales, which anybody can contribute to in the next few months, and the work underway on the justice issue is one that is being dealt with by my colleagues in the MoJ and with the Senate, and whatever happens in the election, there is still going to be a Welsh Government of some form.

Don't know what that will be of some form we're discussing with the Welsh Government now. We'll discuss with the Welsh Government afterwards, and indeed, as Minister responsible for devolution in the Home Office, I have regular meetings with counterpart Ministers in Wales on those issues, as do my policing colleagues, and I hope that with those reassurances at this late hour, we could withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his answers, and I Minister, for his answers, and I thank all noble Lords for contributing in the debate. I think contributing in the debate. I think what is most important, from what we've gathered this evening is to ensure, whatever arrangement going forward, that is decided, that it isn't decided just in England for how it can benefit and work for police forces in England. But there

00:00

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)

- -

is a particular engagement in Wales. I know that you've mentioned particular engagement with the particular engagement with the Smirnov and police forces there, but to make sure that it is it is but to make sure that it is it is genuine engagement that they can actually design what that system looks like for the benefit of Wales. looks like for the benefit of Wales. And not that it's just a another version of what is going to happen in England. I think that is that is in England.

I think that is that is very important to happen. But going forward, I think that all of us who took part in this debate would welcome a further discussion. To find out more about the next steps. I'm sure we'll have further discussions about this, but today I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will withdraw my amendment. Is it Your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 409B Baroness Smith is Amendment 409B Baroness Smith is not moved. Not moved. Amendment 409C Baroness Jones not moved amendment 409D Baroness amendment 409D Baroness Neville-rolfe I rise to move my amendment. 409D and the other amendments in my name and I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issues of police force, publication of enforcement data, reducing police paperwork, and the reform of disclosure.

To that end, I've discovered in a long career in business and in government that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and the regulations themselves, and this is particularly true for neighbourhood policing. It's not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data, better data on enforcement publicly available would both be a motivator for effective policy and help to hold the police to account. Hence, my amendment takes in five areas of public concern which the great British public care about shoplifting offences, offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare, dodging on public transport and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.

The Minister mentioned in committee that the Home Office will this year introduce a sector facing police performance dashboard that will help chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the sort of data we are seeking and to drive improvements. So I have two questions which might help to allay my concerns. First, will this information be made accessible by each police force to the public, at least on an annual basis? Second, will the five categories in my amendment be covered? That brings me on to my new amendment for 09F, a new clause on data sharing.

Ministers may know the Police Federation campaign simplified DG

00:00

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

six. It aims to tackle the bureaucracy around disclosure, which sees both uniformed and which sees both uniformed and detective officers tied up for hours. Police officers are required to redact files that go to the CPS in order for them to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to there is sufficient evidence to charge an offender. A data bubble allowing unredacted information to allowing unredacted information to be exchanged between the police and the CPS before a charging decision would free up thousands of policing hours every year.

Now, the noble Lady, Lady Ducey, mentioned in committee that this could be achieved by a modest and targeted change to the Data Protection Act, and that is exactly what my amendment seeks to do. That was a reference to the disclosure problem in the police white paper, which makes me optimistic. And I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will therefore agree to our approach and come back at Third Reading with his own amendment on these lines. There is really no need for further delay.

My amendment also seeks a review of the efficiency and speed of the sharing of the Police national database. This is a probing amendment amendment, since I understand that because of stringent data controls, it's very difficult for Met officers, for example, to get data quickly on past investigations from other police forces, for example, on child abuse. Unfortunately, such crimes do not follow police boundaries. I look forward to the Minister undertaking to look into the problem. Amendment 409 E seeks to tackle the huge bureaucracy that the police services have become, with energetic police officers weighed down by petty requirements.

The bill adds to such requirements rather than the reverse. The bill introduces new offences, for example, in sexual and online crime, but it is much lighter on neighbourhood policing. We need to free up resources for enforcement, which is why I proposed a review of police paperwork and its online equivalent in committee. The Minister mentioned the 223 223 police activity survey, which is to be repeated this year, and perhaps he could summarize the main findings and explain how it is actually being used to reduce bureaucracy from its reference.

The College of Police's work policing's work on productivity. I fear that current activity is disproportionately focused on fashionable AI. This, in my experience, can lead to expensive outside contracts, freezing existing practices, and what we need is to reduce the number of less important steps and functions in the police, and to look at experience elsewhere, such as lean thinking in business process. We found this very useful in the retail sphere. Another huge employer of well-trained, decent people. A review should also look at the IT and AI systems linking police to the courts and the CPS, and to other enforcement bodies.

The truth is, my Lords, as the noble Lady, Lady Boxer, Fox and Barclays said in committee that whenever you talk to police officers, one of the most valuable frustrations they voice is the ever growing regime of paperwork and bureaucracy. There's huge scope for savings and simplification given the right direction from the Minister. The wild west of street crime is here today, but as the government has made clear, their reforms will take years. They will also increase, not decrease paperwork, for example, requiring a license to practice for every police constable.

This will lead to a mushrooming of accreditation and training, paperwork or online filing linked to the proposed wellbeing and development checks and career pathways. So it's all the more reason for our proposed review of paperwork and bureaucracy. If the Minister were agreeable, I'd be delighted to meet him or his ministerial colleagues to discuss the best way to progress this agenda. I have business and civil service experience of cutting red tape and would frankly like to help, but obviously at a more civilised hour, I beg to move.

Amendment hour, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 182 insert the following new clause police enforcement data as printed on the master list.

00:05

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord, I rise to speak to this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness Neville-rolfe and with the finishing post in sight, my Lords, I'm going to be extremely brief. They correctly identify a crisis at the heart of our police service. There is a consensus that our police are currently drowning in a sea of unnecessary paperwork, and my noble friend, Baroness Ducey's policy paper Policing fit for the future, makes the case with devastating clarity. It records the testimony of chief constables, who warned that low morale and heavy workloads are being compounded by quotes.

Archaic IT systems, some over half a century old, which force highly trained officers to spend more time as data entry clerks than as crime fighters. The government's own white paper, from local to national, a new model for policing acknowledges this failure. It rightly sets out a mission to strip away the barriers that prevent officers from focusing on the public's priorities. And on these benches, we welcome the ambition to automate manual processes and deliver millions of hours back to the front line.

But my Lords, I'm not going to go into detail on the amendments, but we cannot support them as drafted. They risk micromanaging the police through the statute book and could become relics of a different era within a few short years. But I do urge the Minister to take the spirit of these proposals to heart and ensure they're reflected in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new national policing model. My Lords, I'm grateful to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend, Baroness Neville-rolfe, for bringing forward this group of amendments. Together, they address a theme that will be familiar to many across the House the need to ensure the police officers are able to focus their officers are able to focus their time on policing rather than on bureaucracy. Amendment 409 concerns the publication of enforcement data the publication of enforcement data for a number of offences that have become a source of considerable public concern, including shoplifting offences involving blades, phone theft and fare evasion.

We strongly lend our support to the amendment. Greater transparency around enforcement activity can only help to strengthen public confidence and provide a clearer picture of how policing resources are being deployed. Amendment 490 addresses the volume of paperwork that officers are required to complete during Committee stage. It was rightly observed that administrative burdens can too often draw officers away from the front line. A review of the scale of those requirements and how they might be simplified would therefore be a sensible and constructive step.

Finally, amendment 409 F raises the question of data sharing and the efficiency of the systems that underpin case preparation and charging decisions. As many noble Lords will. No delays and inefficiencies in the exchange of

00:08

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

information between police and the Crown Prosecution Service can slow down the progress of cases and down the progress of cases and place additional strain on already stretched resources. There is a significant amount of work that significant amount of work that goes into reduction of police documents before they are sent to CPS. Often for these documents are CPS. Often for these documents are simply be sent back because they have over redacted. Furthermore, many of those cases the police many of those cases the police redact may not end up being prosecuted.

It is clear that this is a significant waste of police time and money, and my noble friend Baroness Neville Rolfe, is right. It would make more sense for the CPS to take charge of redaction of documents that may enter the public domain, given they would have a far smaller number of documents to trawl through. So, taken together, these amendments all speak to a wider objective, ensuring that the system surrounding policing work as efficiently as possible, as efficiently as possible, allowing officers to focus on preventing crime, catching offenders and protecting the public.

And police should be spending as much time in the front line as possible, rather than being encumbered with unnecessary paperwork. So I hope the Minister will give them careful consideration, and I, as always, look forward to his response.

00:09

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

Well, said Luke Davies. >> Well, said Luke Davies. >> Well, my Lords. >> We're nearly there. >> I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe, for Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe, for return to these issues, which were thoroughly debated at committee, and also to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Davidson, for their contributions to this short but nevertheless important debate. I know the noble Lady takes a keen interest in improving how police handle data and utilize their resources effectively, and we share that objective and appreciate her her constructive contribution to to that discussion as regards amendment.

Nine D and the as the noble Lady mentioned, as announced in our Police Reform White Paper, the government will introduce Police Performance Dashboard this year, which will allow chief constables and local policing bodies to analyze transparent and operationally significant data, and this will allow forces to understand where they're performing well and where they can improve the Home Office and the office for National Statistics already, of course, publish extensive data on police, recorded knife crime, shoplifting and theft and the outcomes assigned to these crimes.

The published outcome data provides detailed information on what's happened after crime was recorded by the police, such as where it resulted in charge or summons out of court disposal, etc. essentially, it links crime types, their investigative and judicial results, giving insights to how offensives progress through the criminal justice system. Additional data is available through through Police.uk, where members of the public can access monthly crime maps and stop and search statistics and transport authorities also publish enforcement data on fare evasion, such as transport for London.

This is to say that the dashboards are still in development, but I hope that gives a. It will be working on the. What this will be building on what we already. What we already provide in the public domain. I know from her contributions to this bill that the noble Lady has concerns about how police are enforcing the law, particularly around offences involving cyclists and e-scooters. The Home Office has recently established Police Police Performance Framework to provide a strong mechanism for monitoring enforcement activity across all police forces in England and Wales.

This framework is flexible is currently scheduled for review in 2728, mandating which offences the police publish enforcement data through a fixed list in statute, as her amendment envisions, does not offer the necessary flexible flexibility. As the noble Lord Clement Jones noted to as to how the performance framework operates. In addition, it risks duplicating the work already being undertaken that I've outlined. Turning to amendment 409, the government has already gained valuable insight into how police time is used through the 2023 Police Activity Survey, which the noble Lady also referred.

Given the usefulness of those results, the Home Office ran the survey again this year, as she acknowledged, and with field work taking place just last week, we expect to have the results in the next few months and consider how to ensure they can enable police productivity improvements, but from from this activity, we expect to gain a detailed profile of how police time is used, as well as insights into productive and non-productive uses of that time. We've sponsored the centre for Police Productivity Productivity in the College of Policing and launched the Police Efficiency and Collaboration Programme in 2024 to improve productivity and efficiency across police forces.

Furthermore, in the recently published White Paper, we have presented an array of the most significant reforms to policing for nearly 200 years. It outlines our plans to modernize the entire workforce, establish a new performance system to drive improvements in forces, strip out duplication efficiency and deliver £354 million of efficiency savings through a police efficiency and collaboration programme. I know that the noble Lady is keen on efficiency savings, so I hope she welcomes that. That announcement. Finally, regarding amendment 409 F, we support the noble Ladies desire to free up officer time by removing administrative burdens such as unnecessary redaction, and improve the efficiency of case file preparation and the charging process.

A large part of the reduction burden is driven by a current disclosure practice, so we have collaborated with criminal justice partners to pilot a more proportionate approach to disclosure. The pilot running in the Crown Prosecution Services southeast region, aims to reduce the production burden by reducing the unnecessary sharing of unused material and refocus efforts on what meets the test for disclosure. This should make case preparation more efficient and enable more timely and effective charging decisions. We're also working with policing to support their adoption of AI enabled redaction technology.

The majority of forces now have AI enabled text redaction tools, and we're supporting those forces to adopt audio visual multimedia reduction technology in the most efficient way. In conclusion, we support the aims of these amendments, but given the work in train, I hope I've been able to persuade the noble Baroness that the amendments are not necessary at this stage. However, I would be very happy as she requested to facilitate a meeting with the most appropriate Minister so we can take the discussion further.

But in the meantime, I'd invite her to withdraw her amendment.

00:14

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

I thank the Minister for his courteous reply, and the prospect courteous reply, and the prospect of a meeting is most welcome. I'll be able to clarify 1 or 2 outstanding points in relation to the material that he's kindly set out, and I was glad to hear about the pilot on redaction in the southeast, and that I hope in due course, either that will solve this problem by redaction, which we. I think, with the Lib Dems agree is a big problem, or whether there needs to be a some sort of legislation brought forward.

But in view of the of his response and the lateness of the hour, I look forward to withdrawing my amendment. Your Lordship's pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn and amendments 409

**** Possible New Speaker ****

E and 409 F not moved. My Lords, I beg to move for further consideration on report. Do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many as are of that adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, I'd like to move the house. Do now adjourn.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page