Lords Chamber

Thursday 22nd January 2026

(began 1 hour, 43 minutes ago)

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

>> >> Charles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

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

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

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

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

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've described.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, this has been a short

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, and I hope this helps the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, we have committed to establish a wider review to address barriers to timeliness in police
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page