Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Cromwell

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for setting out the case for his amendment. In tabling the amendment, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint and to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill at the Department for Transport on the issue.

I think across the Committee we share the same concerns. I stress that the Government take the issue of the use of drones to facilitate illegal activity extremely seriously. However, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint set out in his letter to the noble Lord that the challenges of responding to these are not gaps in our criminal law so much as limitations on the practical enforcement tools available and in regulation to improve the visibility and compliance of drones. We are working to address these issues by supporting the development of counter-drone technologies and operational approaches, and ensuring regulations are in place that enable the legitimate use of drones while assisting operational responders in identifying illegitimate users.

Amendment 486A seeks to criminalise the use of drones for criminal reconnaissance and the carrying of illicit substances. The act of criminal reconnaissance is not in itself currently an offence, as proving intent, prior to an act being committed or without substantive additional evidence, would be extremely difficult for prosecutors. Criminal reconnaissance using a drone encounters the same issue. It would be impractical and disproportionate to arrest anyone for taking photos of a property or site, or for piloting a drone. In both instances, the act of reconnaissance would not be practically distinguishable from legitimate everyday actions, making the proposed offence effectively unenforceable. Where intent could be proven, it is likely that such acts could be prosecuted under existing legislation—for example, the offence of going equipped for stealing in Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.

The carrying of illicit materials, whether it is in and out of prisons or elsewhere at large, is already an offence, regardless of a drone’s involvement. There is already a comprehensive regime of offences relating to the possession and supply of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials. I do not think that the amendment would address any gaps in the criminal law.

The Government have already made changes to the unmanned aircraft regulations to require drones to be equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, set out, with direct remote identification, which will improve visibility and accountability of compliant drones. This system will allow drones to broadcast identification and location information in-flight and will help identify drone operators who may be acting suspiciously or breaking the law.

I share the sentiment of the noble Lord and the Committee in seeking to curtail the use of drones for criminal purposes. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment and let me sit down—as I have a cough.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part; I am not going to namecheck—you all know who you are.

It would be an act of cruelty to encourage the Minister, with his cough, to say anything further. I was tempted to ask him to go into a lot more detail, but I do not think that is a good idea.

I suspect we may need to come back to this issue as drone technology continues to advance. I cannot resist mentioning that, more locally, the large giraffe fence that is erected in front of this building will be absolutely no defence against a drone attack—so let us hope it does not come. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Cromwell

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that Defra takes this matter with the utmost seriousness. It simply cannot be the case that people are left to go days on end without an adequate water supply. As I have said, we will take every step to make sure that the chief executive and the executives in the water company are held to account on delivery. As I said in response to the previous question, we have already taken action to legislate and toughen up the regulatory framework. As a consequence, we have already seen, in six out of nine water companies, bonuses banned. We are willing to take action. I am not going to set out the exact details of the White Paper now, but it is important that water company executives realise that they are there to serve their customers, not simply to feather their nest.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, this is a useful and substantive report that I welcome—in particular, its suggestion to merge the regulators into one super-regulator, which we certainly need. The underlying problem, which it identifies, is the need for long-term investment. I was surprised, therefore, that there is very little reference to the regulator needing skills in the financial engineering which has bedevilled the way that water companies have been run in the past. There is one reference, on page 197, to needing financial skills, but that is about it, I think. Does that give the Minister cause for concern?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord is certainly right to recognise the importance of the recommendation by Sir Jon, in the commission report, of establishing a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector that will stand on the side of customers. He is right that the new regulator needs a wide range of skills, not only in terms of knowledge and understanding of the environment, customer service and regulation but also in terms of financial incentives. In the price review of 2024, we have seen the commitment to more than £100 billion of future investment in water infrastructure. In fact, since Ofwat announced its final determination, water companies have already raised over £2 billion in new equity investment. There is work going on, but he is absolutely right that there is no point having a single powerful regulator that is not able to regulate across the land and across the entire water sector’s activity.

Water Companies: Private Ownership

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Cromwell

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. To build on the answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Sikka, we have already put in place new measures, including the emergency legislation last year, to ensure that we are bearing down on water executives. We have indeed taken action. As I said, we are putting in place robust support measures for customers who are struggling to pay their bills and, as a result, water companies have more than doubled the number of customers who receive help with bills through social tariffs, from 4% to 9% by 2030. We are working with industry to keep current support schemes under review to ensure that customers are sufficiently supported.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the real issue is not public or private ownership but that the regulator clearly lacked the financial engineering skills to understand, spot and curtail the excessive debt loading and value extraction by private equity in previous years?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I agree completely with the noble Lord. Efficient, precise and forensic regulation is needed in this sector. That came across very clearly in the report of the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. In response to his report, we have already committed to establishing a single regulator for water and to introduce a regional element within it so that, working with local communities, local businesses and water companies, the needs of an area, whether agriculture or the built environment, are taken account of in determining water company action.