Prison and Probation Service

Lord Katz Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, not for the first time, I am feeling a bit outclassed and overawed by the legal and judicial expertise in this place that has produced so many excellent speeches. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for inviting us to talk about the state of prisons and probation services.

However, I want to start by making some broader points about context. During the week, we have had the extraordinary sight of 92% of the citizens of an Oxford village, Piddington, population 358, voting in a symbolic referendum to become independent from the United Kingdom. In interviews with residents, there has been a common theme: the state is exposing them to danger. Housing 1,250 young male asylum seekers in nearby Bicester garrison means:

“Our safety, our security and our freedoms will be under threat”.


To paraphrase one woman: “If these men need government leaflets to explain that sexually abusing children or raping women is wrong, I’m frightened to go out alone. I will become a prisoner in my own house”. That is my theme, in a way.

The sentiment of being a prisoner in your own house is not confined to leafy villages but is felt in towns and cities throughout the country. It is not confined to asylum policies. One key issue that has been a lightning rod for worries that state policies are indifferent to public safety is the early release scheme—for example, those women who now feel frightened in their own homes as victims of domestic abuse, worried that their early released tormentors may show up on the doorstep. Somehow the law-abiding are unfairly becoming the victims of failed state policies.

I would normally want to use today’s debate to talk in detail about prison reform, because I am passionate especially about improving educational initiatives in prison and I hate the lack of purposeful activity available that has been so well described by other noble Lords—I thought the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, made a magnificent speech—but it is also true that it has become particularly difficult to convince the public that the MoJ should prioritise improving the treatment of prisoners in jail when so many are being released out of jail before they have served their time. Discussing rehabilitation feels meaningless when the very purposes of prisons—at least in the sense of punishment and deprivation of liberty, not cruelty, or of protecting the public, let alone rehabilitation to reduce reoffending—are made a mockery of by successive Governments’ failure to deliver prison expansion and now the makeshift solutions to deal with the fallout.

Early release schemes outsource the problem into our communities, literally dumping it on our streets. The public are rightly furious that criminals will not now serve the sentences that the law, which we make here, thinks is appropriate for their crimes. Recent polling shows that 69% of those questioned are against the early release scheme. More troubling, 68% say they have lost faith in all Governments’ handling of criminal justice per se. At the forthcoming annual Battle of Ideas festival organised by the Academy of Ideas, which I run—I declare an interest—one of the panel debates is entitled: “Letting abusers out early: solving the prisons crisis”. It is proving to be an unexpected festival sell-out hit.

When I talk to people, four recurring themes are raised. There is a perception that the early release scheme, alongside the Sentencing Act, has a presumption against prison in favour of community sentences. With the even further reductions in release dates to a third of sentences served, people just feel that sentencing has become a joke and that it is less a pragmatic response to a lack of prison space than an official ideological turn against incarceration as punishment. This is happening without public debate or consent.

There is also a worry that the prison crisis is diminishing the diligence of policing in pursuing certain crimes. What is the point of arresting shoplifters or burglars if they cannot be threatened with the prospect of prison?

A third concern is that early release is a lazy reaction to the crisis. Why are there no other emergency options—perhaps the prison equivalent of NHS Nightingales? Maybe the thousands of empty prison cells currently out of action could be renovated, or even the shocking facts about those kept on remand, which we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, in his brilliant maiden speech, could be tackled. It is a disgrace that this is such a large percentage of the prison community.

A final concern is in response to the Government’s reassurance that early release prisoners are not being released freely but will be under close supervision. Yet probation services admit that they are not equipped to cope. The whole paraphernalia of control and surveillance in the community—curfews, electronic tags, formal restriction zones, the wearing of high-vis vests—can only result in whole swathes of local areas feeling more like open-air prisons for all, rather than a free society.

Possibly the only good thing to have come from the prison crisis is Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s commendable announcement that he will, at last, end the injustice of IPP prisoners. I confess that I got emotional hearing an ex-IPP prisoner, Marc Conway from UNGRIPP, declaring that it was,

“a day that thousands of families have spent years fighting for”.

He also stressed that implementing the decision needed to be swift and transparent, and that is where the euphoria is dampened.

Last week, I received this message from Stacey Clough of the Injustice of IPP campaign. It is worth listening to her words. She said:

“I think it’s great what Andy Burnham has said, but he has left IPP prisoners and their families with a different mental torture by not making it clear what it’s going to look like … and they still have no definite date to count down to. My partner said all the IPPs in Wayland have gone downhill, as the hopes were raised by the announcement, but as there’s no time-frame… they’re all worried it’s false hope. What if there’s an election and Labour are voted out—then back to square one. They have now been left with uncertainty. If the Government don’t end it, there is going to be more suicides”.


I gulped at that. Stacey continued:

“The thing is he could order probation to release the recalled prisoners without any new requirements—and no new legislation is needed because of executive powers created in 2012—powers they’ve never used. They should also be recommending that anyone going up for parole, with no new crimes or charges on a recall, should be granted release and have their licence terminated and give them a supervision order instead”.


My advice to the Minister is to recommend to the MoJ that Stacey is given a job, because she has got it all completely right, as far as I am concerned. There are so many inequities in the way in which IPP prisoners continue to be treated. It is not just that we need to have these things happen more quickly. For example, we hear that, even when IPP prisoners are granted parole, they are often kept in prison for months and months, due to a lack of approved accommodation on the outside. There are things that need to be done fast.

While the Minister defended the principle of recall at Questions this week, the fact that the number of IPP prisoners recalled without any criminal charge has gone up from 70% in 2023 to 77% in 2025 should worry him. I hope that noble Lords have a good recess, but I will be at No. 10 North on Monday, along with anti-IPP protestors—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Order. The time limit is eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I am the barrier between everyone and Recess.

This has been a good, valuable and collaborative debate. We have worked together. There has not been partisanship. That is important because this is an important and, to be quite frank, depressing subject. The reasons for depression have become apparent from many of the speeches today. I compliment every Member who has contributed today. There have been excellent contributions. I hope that the Hansard of this debate will get some publicity because it needs it. People need to see clearly the problems that are going on in the prison estate, but they also need to see how we can work together and co-operate. I very much liked the emphasis on the prisoner as a human being, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but also came over in many speeches. I concur with everybody that it was an honour to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, make his maiden speech in this debate. It was a hugely valuable contribution.

I am not going to go on and on because we need to get to Recess and it has been a long day. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions. I hope the debate gets widespread impact across Parliament, into the departments of government and out there to the wider public so that they understand the problems in the prison estate at the moment.

Motion agreed.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we are about to go into Recess, so I take this opportunity to thank all the staff of the House for their hard work and support and wish them and, indeed, all noble Lords a restful Recess. I hope noble Lords enjoy their party conference, if they are attending.

House adjourned at 6.08 pm.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I do not think that we take interventions on Report, if I may refer to the Companion—but perhaps the Whip could assist us.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

I can clarify for your Lordships’ House that the noble Baroness is able to take interventions, or not, as she wishes.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I would like to proceed and conclude my argument. I will be happy to listen to the noble Baroness once I have finished.

Because the police do not know when they find a lifeless body which of the situations they are confronted with, even with decriminalisation of abortion offences for the women acting in relation to her pregnancy, she may still be investigated. If it was a case of stillbirth, for example, for that woman the investigation will inevitably be a cause of stress. She might be worried that the evidence will not support her or she will not be believed. However, what else are the police supposed to do in these cases, other than try to establish the facts?

Therefore, it is not possible to remove women acting in relation to their pregnancy from any criminal process, even if you decriminalise abortion offences for them. What is possible is to introduce further guarantees, as we are attempting to do with this amendment, that would add an additional layer of personal assurance from the DPP that the facts in context of terminations are taken into account, and that after 12 months, in any event, proceedings will not be brought against the pregnant woman. It ensures that the decision to prosecute in relation to the woman is taken at the highest level—the DPP—and applies the certainty of a limitation period.

No solution in this area will ever be flawless, but when the evidence before us is so limited and the broader picture so uncertain, wholesale decriminalisation would be a disproportionate response to a problem which, in any event, needs careful and thoughtful steps for resolution. This amendment offers a more balanced and workable path to the problem that we all want to resolve satisfactorily. It provides meaningful safeguards for women, ensuring that any decision to prosecute is taken at the highest level, as well as the certainty of a limitation period, while not upending the balancing of principles and values underlying the Abortion Act 1967. I hope that both those who oppose criminalisation and those who are rightly troubled by the distressing cases we have discussed will see that this approach represents a principled and proportionate compromise, and will feel able to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I am very sorry—I have to carry on or I am going to run out of time. This is Report and I am going to continue.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is perfectly entitled not to take any interventions. We will make better progress if people just agree to take interventions or not, and then we will be able to hear from everyone.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

One letter I received pointed out that 22 week-plus babies aborted in a medical setting are clinically euthanised prior to surgery with a lethal injection into the heart. What would happen, she asked in her letter, to babies aborted at home and born alive? Would the baby be left to die? How would the baby be disposed of? Would the mother be charged with infanticide?

Clause 208, as confirmed by a legal opinion obtained by the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh, in the other place, would also make it legal for a woman to perform her own abortion on sex-selective grounds at any time. Data from NHS England shows that there is already an imbalance in the sex of children among certain communities that cannot be explained by pure chance. Do the proposers of this clause want to further facilitate what has been called femicide?

Let me be clear about what Clause 208 does not do. It does not, despite the claims of its promoters, leave the current law intact. If the 24-week limit can no longer be defended when women induce their own abortions, and they can obtain pills through the post via a phone call, the limit set by Parliament in 1990 is rendered meaningless. The reason why it was then lowered from 28 weeks was precisely because of concerns about the termination of viable children.

The most basic justification for all abortions is that the unborn child in question is unwanted. The slogan is that every child should be a wanted child, but we all know that there are so many couples who for medical reasons cannot have families themselves yet desperately want a family. When you think of the fate of a viable baby being aborted as unwanted when there are so many families yearning to provide that love and support via adoption, this clause is morally questionable, even on the purely utilitarian grounds of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

The preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that

“the child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Removing the offence of a woman terminating her own pregnancy, even at full term, would remove the few remaining legal protections for unborn children.

I am sure that the proposers of Clause 208 genuinely believe that they will thereby create a kinder and more civilised society, but I fear that the consequences, if this is passed, will be precisely the opposite.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

238: Clause 75, page 102, line 28, leave out from “to” to end of line 29 and insert “66B, 67 or 67A of that Act (offences relating to exposure, intimate images and voyeurism),”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends subsection (6)(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical in nature. Amendments 238 and 251 modify provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10, which provide for the new grooming aggravating factor and relate to the duty to report child sexual abuse respectively. In each case, the provisions refer to a run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. When the Bill was originally drafted, this run of offences all related to offences against children, which are relevant to the provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has since added two adult-related offences into the run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the 2003 Act, specifically at Sections 66E and 66F. These two amendments simply remove the new adult-focused offences from the list of relevant offences in Clause 75 and Schedule 10.

Amendment 388 to Schedule 18 adds to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill an amendment of a provision recently inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code. Finally, Amendments 447, 453 and 454 provide that the provisions on child sexual abuse image generators at Clause 65, costs protections at Clause 162 and anonymity for firearms officers at Clauses 168 to 171 all have UK-wide extent, as was the original drafting intention. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They seem to be entirely reasonable and we support their implementation.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Official Opposition’s support for these amendments.

Amendment 238 agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

308: Clause 108, page 147, line 4, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (1), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (2), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, following consideration of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Committee, the Government have brought forward amendments to the stalking provisions in Part 6.

Amendments 308 to 313, 314 and 315 explicitly provide for the civil standard of proof to apply when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement to an order in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This includes when the courts are deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order. This will promote consistency and improve clarity in understanding of the standard of proof applicable in cases of stalking protection orders.

In addition, I am very happy to accept Amendment 316 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will convert the power conferred on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about stalking into a duty to do so. This will align the provision on guidance in the Stalking Protection Act 2019 with that in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, promoting consistency in the legislative provisions which aim to tackle violence against women and girls.

My noble friend Lady Royall also has Amendment 313A in this group. I will respond to it once she and other noble Lords have contributed to the debate, but in the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 313A, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment in Committee. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the domestic abuse protection orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders, and it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims.

I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting me, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support.

Amendment 313A is very similar to the one I moved in Committee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices—SPNs—to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate, since it would criminalise the breach of a police-issued notice without court oversight. I have therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for DAPOs.

Why is this amendment necessary? Because, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super-complaint and its report on experiences of the CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one, given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place.

In response to the super-complaint, HMICFRS highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the Government to use the DAPN framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the DAPN, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection in stalking cases.

The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of the stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they are likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.

It is both right and logical that SPNs should be enabled and put in place following a similar approach to DAPNs. They would offer immediate police-applied protection in stalking cases and set a timeframe for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that, at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser, so steps must be taken to bring this into line.

The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This case opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, vexatious complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved house to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different OICs and different teams from the outset, which has caused considerable delay—to the detriment of the client. An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there has been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force.

The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP but, as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025. Multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025, but this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months the force had not secured an SPO. At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force’s legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time that has elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it has required a magistrate’s application to secure a bail extension.

This and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection notices. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as a preliminary point, when we debated this part of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower made the point that the Government are not taking a strong enough line on sentencing for those convicted of stalking offences. That remains the case. I hope that Ministers will heed that warning. Violence against women and girls is unacceptable. We can all agree that and we must have a zero-tolerance approach. Strengthening stalking protection orders is just one step, but we need to take a tougher approach on sentencing and enforcement.

Amendment 313A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is a reasonable proposal which Ministers should consider. It sets out the structure of the SPN procedure. The noble Baroness also spoke to existing flaws in the current SPO system. I have a couple of questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could consider. Do the Government feel that the existing stalking protection order system is dealing with orders sufficiently quickly? What steps are Ministers taking to speed up the process when issues arise?

Given the hour, I do not intend to detain the House further. We accept the government amendments in this group on the civil standard of proof, which respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. They have the effect of clarifying the position on the standard of proof used when imposing SPOs. Clarity of the law and its application are essential parts of any just legal system and we welcome them.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. As my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon set out, Amendment 313A would introduce a stalking protection notice, which could be imposed by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. I am grateful to my noble friend for continuing to raise the operational issues impacting how well stalking protection orders work in practice and the differences between existing protective order frameworks for addressing violence against women and girls.

I am also grateful to my noble friend, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for meeting with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, to discuss their amendment. I understand and sympathise with the intention of noble Lords to address this issue. In our violence against women and girls strategy, published in December, we committed to launch stalking protection order intensification sites into select police force areas. These will aim to drive up the use of stalking protection orders and provide opportunities to test innovative approaches to enforcing conditions and monitoring breaches which could be adopted nationwide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have just had a look to see whether I can find any data on the number of stalking protection orders issued to those under 18, and the answer is that they are not disaggregated. The Minister is drawing this great distinction about those aged between 10 and 17. We have just had a debate on another matter where we think there is a very small number involved. It would be useful to know if we could have some help from the Minister on the likelihood of numbers.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It may not entirely surprise the noble Baroness that I do not have that data or the awareness of what we can do with the data to hand, but I am certainly happy to undertake to write to her with as much detail as we can summon.

I hope that my noble friend will be content not to move her Amendment 313A and, with other noble Lords, will support the government amendments in this group.

Amendment 308 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

314: Clause 110, page 155, line 13, at end insert—
“(ii) after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (3), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I did not say that the noble Baroness did. My point is that after a public inquiry, where it was found that W80 had lawfully killed Jermaine Baker in 2015, and a series of further hearings that led eventually to the Supreme Court, W80 appeared before a gross misconduct hearing by an independent body—nothing to do with the police; it was ordered by the IOPC—and was found to have no case to answer. It was not found that there was an arguable case, or that there was mitigation. There was no case to answer, 10 years later. It had been through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and nobody had noticed that there was no case to answer.

One of the central problems in these cases is that they are rare. Every time an officer waits years to be cleared, there is an outcry asking why they were charged in the first place or why it took so long to resolve. Every Government affected by this has said, “We will review it, and improve”. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has just mentioned the latest example of that.

My broad point is that all the reviews in the world have produced absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed. I have given two examples but there are many more, where people have been waiting 10 years for something to be shown to be not a criminal offence. I am afraid that the reviews have not produced anything, which has led to me tabling this amendment.

The officers are under a triple jeopardy. First, the IOPC considers whether there is a criminal offence or an offence of misconduct. That can take around 18 months. If there is a claim of a criminal offence, that is considered by the CPS, which probably takes another year. In the event that there is a criminal charge, the officer will go to court. During this period, the inquest into the person’s death will have been suspended. If there has been no charge, the inquest, usually with a jury, will be resumed. Those juries can find, and have found, that there was an unlawful killing, which then must be reconsidered by the CPS, usually leading to a criminal charge to go through a criminal court and then back through the IOPC. It has been hard to establish the facts, but by my calculation there have been around five officers charged with murder following cases over the last 20 years, each leading to a finding of not guilty at a Crown Court. The people who seem to be able to appreciate this issue, and deal with it with some wisdom, are called jurors.

My amendment is designed to give some comfort to firearms officers that their case will have to reach a higher bar before a prosecution can be started. It is modelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has mentioned—he is the one who pointed this out to me—on the householder defence to murder that already exists in criminal law. If a householder is attacked in their home and, in the process of defending themselves, kills the intruder, there is a higher legal threshold to pass before a prosecution for murder can follow. All I am asking is for the same to apply to a firearms officer.

I have talked to the Attorney-General about this. He reminded me that lawyers generally have concerns about this because it creates a unique group, a group of people who are treated differently by the criminal law, but I have two points in response to that general principle. First, householders are already a unique group. The criminal law has decided that they are a unique group and that is okay, but that it would not be all right for police firearms officers, who—I argue—are also a unique group. Why can we not add one more group? This was decided by Parliament on the advice of lawyers. What is different about this group? More importantly, for the reasons that I have given, they are a unique group. They the only people in society who use a firearm to prevent a crime, save a life or make an arrest. We say that no one can carry a firearm for that purpose, even if they are a legal firearm owner.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I end with this. I know that it is late. All our firearms officers are volunteers. They cannot be ordered to carry a gun. Unlike in the USA, it is not a condition of service. We rely on their honour and willingness to come forward and take on these roles. There is evidence that this is not happening in the numbers we need. There are not many noble Lords in the Chamber, but I ask those who are here whether they would do it. Could they do it? Would they take that responsibility, facing the inevitable inquiries that would follow? It involves not only the officer but their family.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I know, but I have waited all day as well.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

If the noble Lord could conclude his remarks, that would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

There are just too many times when officers are faced with the challenge, which is unfair. The solution I propose is that we should treat firearms officers fairly and differently. I am not a lawyer. The Government may be able to come up with a better proposal, but the position that we have at the moment is untenable and something that I am not prepared to let rest. I ask for support from the Government in some respect.

My final point is that I support, to some extent, the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Jackson. My concern is that it might lead to more people being charged more often, and I am arguing that they should be charged less often for doing their job.