Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

This amendment has just turned up here. It is for this House; it was not dealt with in the Commons. That is why we are debating it. It is a brand-new amendment. It is extensive—two or three pages.

I know I am a bit out of date, having been here so long since I left the other place, but the Commons will not have the chance to debate this amendment, simply because of the procedure for dealing with Lords amendments. So, while I agree in general with what my noble friend the Minister has brought forward, let us not kid ourselves. At the end of the day, the Commons has the last word on everything—but it does not have all the detailed words on everything. So, we have to be really careful in the way we scrutinise something that turns up here at the last minute and cannot be looked at again in the other place. If we start a Bill in this place, it is different, but we did not. We therefore have to be careful about what we are doing.

My other point is that, in general, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am not in favour of discrimination against anybody on any grounds whatsoever, but he raised the point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that in general, the discrimination on misgendering is basically anti-women, because they will be the majority who might have the complaint. There is no question about that. Therefore, the issue should not be left nor criminalised. It may be that my noble friend the Minister has a perfectly straightforward answer. I certainly hope he has, because although I do not propose to vote for any of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, he has raised a very fair point. Again, there will be no chance to discuss this in the Commons, so we need to have a bit more of the detail here in this House.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police. My understanding is that the Government’s amendments simply create a legal level playing field, with deterrents currently available on the grounds of race and religion being extended to other protected characteristics. It is far more serious if you are targeted for attack because you are a member of a vulnerable group than if you are attacked at random, and the law should reflect that.

There has been debate today about free speech and non-crime hate incidents, but these provisions are about actual crimes targeted at vulnerable people. I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and those of the Minister.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced these amendments. As he said, this is a government manifesto commitment, and it was evident in the pride with which he moved this amendment. However, I agree with concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others—that it is regrettable that we are seeing the drafting of this provision at this late stage in this House. We have had long debates on the principle as the Bill has gone through, but in this particularly vexed area of the law, the devil really is in the detail, so it is regrettable that we are coming to it fairly late.

In his introduction, the Minister said with clear passion that he wants to level up the protections afforded to people under the law when it comes to hate crime. My concerns are slightly different from some that have been expressed so far in the paused debate: that this amendment as drafted in fact treats some groups of people differently from others and leaves a bit of levelling up still to do.

In part, that is because of the slightly uneasy settlement that we have because of the Equality Act 2010, which, as a Bill, went through Parliament in wash-up. I think it is ripe for a bit of post-legislative scrutiny; it is often prayed in aid in all directions without people fully understanding it. It used to be a bugbear of mine in government when people came to me with a submission talking about people with protected characteristics. I would say, “But that’s everybody”—anyone with an age, a race or a sex has protected characteristics. There is no such person as a person with no protected characteristics. But the way the Equality Act 2010 describes and applies them is not wholly equal, and when it comes to this area of the law, that causes some problems.

We all have a sexual orientation. Section 12 of the Equality Act defines that for us. We may choose different terms ourselves, but it tells us that we are attracted to “the opposite sex”, “the same sex” or members “of either sex”. Accordingly, that is reflected in the amendments that the Government have brought forward vis-à-vis hate crime and hostility on the basis of sexual orientation.

We all have a race or a religion. Again, the descriptions in proposed new subsection (6) talk about

“references to a racial group”,

which could apply to Black people, white people, Asian people, Welsh people—everybody is covered by that provision. In proposed new subsection (6)(b), the

“references to a religious group”

talk explicitly of a “lack of religious belief”. It does not matter whether you are an adherent to a certain religion, you are covered by that. The difficulty in this area comes when we start to apply it to disability or to people’s gender reassignment status, and that is where we start to see the problem in the descriptions in the government amendment. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) talks about

“hostility towards persons who have a disability or … hostility towards persons who are transgender”.

Does that mean that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are, for instance, deaf, could be treated as an aggravated offence, but that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they were a hearing person could not be? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is the case and whether that is really what the Government are seeking to achieve here.

Similarly, when proposed new subsection 3(b)(v) specifies

“hostility towards persons who are transgender”,

and we have seen many horrible examples of crimes that are aggravated on that basis, does that mean that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are transgender, or presumed to be so, could be treated as aggravated, but an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are cisgender—that they are not transgender—could not be? Again, it would be useful to have the clarification.

I am aware that both of those examples are less numerous and, arguably, far less likely to occur, but they are not implausible, and they should not be neglected by laws that we pass in the name of equality. I know this is a difficult area of the law when it comes to drafting—I think that lies behind some of the delay that the Government have had in bringing forward this amendment—but surely it would be possible to avoid these lacunae by stating, for instance, “a disability or lack of disability” or “a person who is transgender or who is not”. Surely that would allow this to be applied in other ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to clarify or come back on a couple of things.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

It is not allowed on Report. You are allowed to ask a question.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The prosecuting authorities have decided in these cases, for whatever reason, that they think it appropriate to bring a prosecution, to bring the matter before a court where a jury determines what is right. We trust juries—I know that it is a contentious issue at the moment as to what extent we trust them and in what circumstances—but in cases of this sort juries will remain, whatever happens to the prospective reforms. It shows that juries are perfectly capable of taking into account all the pressures that face officers in the situation the noble Lord describes and they regularly do so.

I am content to leave it for the prosecution to decide whether there is a case. Of course, if, having heard the prosecution’s evidence, the judge decides that there is not a prima facie case, the case can stop at that stage. Then the matter comes before a jury, and the common sense of 12 citizens decides—almost inevitably, it seems, reflecting all the factors we have discussed—that in very rare circumstances would it be appropriate to convict an officer. Precisely as the noble Lord has said, these are rare circumstances; often, the officer has not discharged a gun in anger before—we are not talking about Los Angeles or New York—so I am content with the situation.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police, although I have not discussed this issue with the police.

I came this evening looking to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but a couple of things that he said have caused me some concern. One is about the principle of open justice—yes, it is important to maintain public confidence, and it requires open examination of the evidence, but in police shooting cases, I am not sure that it is a requirement to identify the individual officer concerned. Exactly what happened during the incident has to be heard in open court and openly reported, but not necessarily the identity of the officer at that stage.

The noble Lord also tried to say that firearms officers did not have a unique role, but they do in the use of lethal force. They discharge their weapons on the understanding that it is highly likely that if they do, somebody will die. They aim at the largest body mass and therefore a fatality is the most likely outcome. That is something that no other police officer who is unarmed, or prison officer, as the noble Lord mentioned, would have to face. Therefore, the role of a firearms officer is unique for those reasons.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee; I did so with considerable wariness given the strength and distinguished nature of the lawyers who were stressing the importance of open justice. I listened to their speeches incredibly carefully and the House owes them a great deal for coming forward and making the position clear.

I worry about the situation of firearms officers. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an incredibly important point. Firearms officers do not pick and choose which incidents they attend; they do not have the opportunity to take legal advice before they pull the trigger, and if they do pull the trigger, the likely outcome is death. That is very different from the situations that most police officers find themselves in.

The second point is that we owe them the presumption that we—the Government, their force, and society more generally—will support them in the work that they do, and if they find themselves in the circumstances that we are discussing this evening, their anonymity will be protected until such time as they are convicted, if that is what happens, because by the time their anonymity has been granted, it is too late. I believe that they need to have that certainty at the outset before they go on any missions, before they are deployed.

We ask firearms officers to go into harm’s way. They face intense physical danger from what they do. They are called only to the most serious incidents and stand the risk of being killed themselves. They face the risk of prosecution or perhaps disciplinary action for the shot they discharge, if indeed that is the outcome—which is, as we have heard, incredibly unlikely, but it does happen. We owe them the limited support of the presumption of anonymity, which could be waived if the situation demanded that. It is a big step indeed to go against the presumption of open justice and I fully recognise that—a very powerful argument has been put forward there.

There is one other point to consider that I do not think has been really explored this evening. The obvious conclusion if officers are worried that their names will be publicised should a legal action be brought is that 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 is doubt in the minds of those officers. That is something that we should consider very carefully as well.

I got to my feet with considerable temerity, as, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am the only non-policeman or non-lawyer present in the discussion so far. None the less, there are some points to bear in mind, and I support the approach of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as I said earlier, I am a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police. However, I have not discussed this subject with the police; these are my personal views.

With regard to Amendments 406 and 407, from my operational policing experience I know that the proportion of transgender men and women in the general population is very small. The proportion of offenders who are transgender is even smaller, 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.

On victim data, the most important operationally useful data for the police in relation to hate crime is how the victim identifies themselves. For other offences, it is what motivated the assailant—that is, what did the assailant perceive the victim to be? Did the assailant perceive the person to be female, in which case it is misogyny? Did they perceive the victim to be transgender, in which case it is transphobia? The birth sex of the victim is not that operationally significant for the police, nor is it likely to be statistically significant.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have one sentence to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The Office for National Statistics, in response to an FoI, said on the collection of data in relation to the “gender identity different from sex registered at birth” category:

“We have to be robust enough to provide reliable estimates”,


but there is not enough data to be able to do that. Why? Because the data is so low that it is statistically insignificant. It is not corrupt and it is not many more to twist it for women. We need to be factually accurate when looking at this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 402, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, concerns the application of the 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.

Every day, police officers must make difficult and sometimes instantaneous decisions in the most challenging circumstances, and their priority must always be public safety. This 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 to mention operational safeguards.

This amendment would ensure that clarity and focus are restored to the operational framework of the police. It 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 that my noble friend Lord Davies and the Minister had a spirited debate in Committee on this topic. I must be entirely frank with your Lordships that 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. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is me again. I declare my interest as a paid adviser to the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, particularly on issues of culture and leadership.

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 their background or the community with which they identify. In addition, to ensure every police officer and member of police staff can be themselves and give of their best, the public sector equality duty is essential. Yesterday, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Mark Rowley, told the London Policing Board that he was committed to continuing the work of the UK’s largest police force on diversity, equality and inclusion. If noble Lords will not take my word for how important the public sector equality duty is to policing, maybe they will take Sir Mark’s.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, introduced Amendment 402, which proposes that the police should be exempt from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, to ensure that they are

“solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions”.

I still have some difficulty in following the arguments for this amendment; I also raised this in Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord seriously believes that applying the PSED takes away from the police carrying out their duties effectively. In speaking earlier to Amendment 400, my noble friend Lady Doocey mentioned the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the importance of standards, training and inspection: the perfect circle that ensures police forces are working effectively. The PSED is absolutely at the heart of that.

A number of high profile cases have absolutely strengthened the need for the PSED. Indeed, it has been failings in policing that shocked the country, and every report on those incidents has talked about appalling attitudes to vulnerable people. On Monday evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, spoke about the murder of her son Stephen, and how that racist murder might have been stopped if the police had done their job earlier, when the harassment was escalating. Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson report of 1999 was a means of changing the culture in public institutions, not just the police, to ensure that they had due regard to race equality decisions. This was later extended to disability and gender issues.

It was clear in Macpherson’s report then that the police were “institutionally racist” and had a lack of curiosity, in the Lawrence case, about the anti-social behaviour of young white gangs and what they were doing to local Black young people. The whole design of the PSED was to ensure that the police could do their job properly, without fear or favour, and support vulnerable communities. There are many excellent, moral and dedicated police officers who fulfil this every working day. Sadly, it has not always been consistent.

When sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman were murdered in a park in June 2020, the public were appalled by the behaviour of the police. Photographs of the dead girls were taken and shared by police officers: this was racism and misogyny. In that case, more work was needed to change the culture of the Met. When Sarah Everard was murdered in March 2021 by a serving police officer, the country was shocked. The background story about misogyny in the force was equally shocking, as was the fact that, at work, the dreadful behaviour of the murderer had been tolerated and not dealt with. I raise these cases because each of the reports on these incidents keeps returning to the culture that engenders racism and misogyny in certain places in the police.

I have absolutely no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, 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 PSED there would be no priority to have due regard to race, gender and disability. There would be no yardstick for the police inspectorate to look at and address culture. There would be no clear duty to ensure that staff are trained. Worst of all, it would be all too easy to slip back into the old ways. I am sure that the Conservative Front Bench would not want that to happen. The PSED 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.