Lords Chamber
11:17
Introduction(s): Baroness Martin of Brockley; Baroness Nargund
-
Introduction(s): Baroness Martin of Brockley; Baroness Nargund
My My Lord's My Lord's house My Lord's house to My Lord's house to be My Lord's house to be again My Lord's house to be again in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee on the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House do again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is, do you know again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill? As many as committee upon the bill? As many as the other opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. After clause 166, amendment 435 Lord Bailey of Paddington.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee on the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House do again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is, do you know again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill? As many as committee upon the bill? As many as the other opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. After clause 166, amendment 435 Lord Bailey of Paddington.
11:18
Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
Support and move Lord Bailey's amendment, which I have added my name to. In fact, all three name to. In fact, all three amendments in this group. The reason for the amendments is because the Police Federation of England and Wales are concerned, England and Wales are concerned, and the concern because they believe that they are not sure that the there is an increased rate of suicide amongst police officers and a similar concern around police staff, for those who do not know, but obviously about two thirds of the police work is done by police officers, about a third by employees who are police staff.
Now, there was so concerned because they intuitively thought that the numbers were rising. They sent out FOI requests to each of the 43 forces. In fact, there's another three. The three Non-home office forces, and they only got 34 replies, which has not helped them in determining whether there is a real problem. So they could be worried and no cause. But at the moment they're struggling to establish the facts. So the difficulty is they cannot get hold of the data. I really concerned about this because it seems to me it shouldn't be that difficult.
I suspect even if the numbers of suicides are increasing, they're probably going to be hundreds. Even amongst a workforce of quarter of a million. It's probably a relatively small number, probably tens rather than hundreds. So even for the biggest organisations, you would think that they would be able to find this data. And for the smallest forces, surely they can remember the individuals. Some of the smaller forces we heard in police reform yesterday, about 1000 people. So they're not going to be that many that small forces couldn't remember who this shocking thing had happened to, because police officers generally and police staff are generally relatively young people.
They don't tend to die when they're in service and when they die through suicide. It's a terrible shock for for everybody who's involved. There are complications in gathering this data because, as Lord Bailey amendment remarks, they would be helpful not only to get the data about those who have committed suicide, but all those also those who have attempted it, the establishing of whether something is a suicide or not relies on a coroner. That's the only absolute way in which we can say for definite there is a suicide.
And sometimes, to be fair, coroners are sympathetic. They realise that this can be fatal to the family, like a judgement, and often they will find any way that they can to, in law, find an alternative. So getting all the data can be difficult. And of course in terms of attempts, then who can say what an attempt is? There's no absolute proof of that. I suspect the occupational health units in each of the 43 forces does have some data, because that's medical data, which they cannot always share with the employer if it's relevant just for that person, it's not relevant to employment.
And it's a confidential issue that the individual wants to be kept quiet but not quiet, but kept secret confidential, then that's entirely up to them. And the occupational health units may not be able to share it. But of course it is vital we get this data for a couple of reasons. One, to establish patterns if there are patterns. So for example, is it cert rolls? We know already that certain officers and staff who view, for example, child abuse images as part of their general work, it's a pretty awful job.
And to have to sustain that over months and years, even all the welfare support they get, might be an area that we'd be worried if we saw that there was an increase in the number of suicides, firearms officers, dog handlers, it doesn't really matter. The roll. It may be male or female. We just need to understand what it is, obviously to try and prevent it. I think the final thing that I'd like to mention is something that I think what worries me about the fact we can't get hold of this data because I think it ought to be possible, at least to get some of it, is what it's saying about the relationship with the chief officers and the police Federation, the unions.
There is a statutory requirement for the chiefs personally to meet with the head of the federation every quarter, and also with the unions. I know that I'm sure my colleagues will also explain that. But beyond that formal requirement, we also meet informally with them, usually about once a month. We also meet Chiefs should be meeting their federation reps at things like bravery awards and various other internal mechanisms. It's hard to imagine if they're concerned they haven't mentioned it, and if they have mentioned it, why aren't they got a response? Why has it ended up with an FOI request which has been badly answered? I'm afraid in three three quarters.
In fact, some of those who didn't reply were the biggest force of all, because sometimes people take that 30 odd out of 40 odd is three quarters. It's three quarters of forces. But some of the forces are very big, some are very small. So we really haven't got any representative data. And my final point is for the Home Office is obviously there are broadly two amendments here. One is a very detailed one that Lord Bailey put forward about not only how the data is gathered, but also what's done with it afterwards.
My amendment is just that the Home Office might want to collect this data, but it does make me wonder has the Home Office asked for it? And have they also been refused it? And perhaps the Home Office could be interested as well? Because I think the two reasons it's really important. One, it matters whether people are committing suicide in their employment to establish is it their employment that's causing it, or is there something else that the employer has got absolutely nothing to do with, but might have been able to help had they had some sensitivity to the, the, the problems that their staff are facing.
And finally, in terms of policing, it's about care. And I think for those who served, then you have to look after each other. My test is always at 3:00 in the morning when everybody else has gone home. You can't call the police. If you're you've got a problem, you've got to ring. You've got to remind your colleagues. So it's vitally important for any employer to look after, care for their staff because they want better performance, and they want to make sure that they're able to do what they're paying the salary for.
But in policing and emergency services in particular, you've got to rely on each other and you've got to look after each other. And this is probably the worst example where if if that isn't done properly or there's anything that you could do to help a person and they take their own life and we could have noticed, surely we'd all want to do something about that. And so for many reasons, I think it matters. And that's why I support Lord Bailey amendment and make the one that I mentioned I put forward for myself.
Now, there was so concerned because they intuitively thought that the numbers were rising. They sent out FOI requests to each of the 43 forces. In fact, there's another three. The three Non-home office forces, and they only got 34 replies, which has not helped them in determining whether there is a real problem. So they could be worried and no cause. But at the moment they're struggling to establish the facts. So the difficulty is they cannot get hold of the data. I really concerned about this because it seems to me it shouldn't be that difficult.
I suspect even if the numbers of suicides are increasing, they're probably going to be hundreds. Even amongst a workforce of quarter of a million. It's probably a relatively small number, probably tens rather than hundreds. So even for the biggest organisations, you would think that they would be able to find this data. And for the smallest forces, surely they can remember the individuals. Some of the smaller forces we heard in police reform yesterday, about 1000 people. So they're not going to be that many that small forces couldn't remember who this shocking thing had happened to, because police officers generally and police staff are generally relatively young people.
They don't tend to die when they're in service and when they die through suicide. It's a terrible shock for for everybody who's involved. There are complications in gathering this data because, as Lord Bailey amendment remarks, they would be helpful not only to get the data about those who have committed suicide, but all those also those who have attempted it, the establishing of whether something is a suicide or not relies on a coroner. That's the only absolute way in which we can say for definite there is a suicide.
And sometimes, to be fair, coroners are sympathetic. They realise that this can be fatal to the family, like a judgement, and often they will find any way that they can to, in law, find an alternative. So getting all the data can be difficult. And of course in terms of attempts, then who can say what an attempt is? There's no absolute proof of that. I suspect the occupational health units in each of the 43 forces does have some data, because that's medical data, which they cannot always share with the employer if it's relevant just for that person, it's not relevant to employment.
And it's a confidential issue that the individual wants to be kept quiet but not quiet, but kept secret confidential, then that's entirely up to them. And the occupational health units may not be able to share it. But of course it is vital we get this data for a couple of reasons. One, to establish patterns if there are patterns. So for example, is it cert rolls? We know already that certain officers and staff who view, for example, child abuse images as part of their general work, it's a pretty awful job.
And to have to sustain that over months and years, even all the welfare support they get, might be an area that we'd be worried if we saw that there was an increase in the number of suicides, firearms officers, dog handlers, it doesn't really matter. The roll. It may be male or female. We just need to understand what it is, obviously to try and prevent it. I think the final thing that I'd like to mention is something that I think what worries me about the fact we can't get hold of this data because I think it ought to be possible, at least to get some of it, is what it's saying about the relationship with the chief officers and the police Federation, the unions.
There is a statutory requirement for the chiefs personally to meet with the head of the federation every quarter, and also with the unions. I know that I'm sure my colleagues will also explain that. But beyond that formal requirement, we also meet informally with them, usually about once a month. We also meet Chiefs should be meeting their federation reps at things like bravery awards and various other internal mechanisms. It's hard to imagine if they're concerned they haven't mentioned it, and if they have mentioned it, why aren't they got a response? Why has it ended up with an FOI request which has been badly answered? I'm afraid in three three quarters.
In fact, some of those who didn't reply were the biggest force of all, because sometimes people take that 30 odd out of 40 odd is three quarters. It's three quarters of forces. But some of the forces are very big, some are very small. So we really haven't got any representative data. And my final point is for the Home Office is obviously there are broadly two amendments here. One is a very detailed one that Lord Bailey put forward about not only how the data is gathered, but also what's done with it afterwards.
My amendment is just that the Home Office might want to collect this data, but it does make me wonder has the Home Office asked for it? And have they also been refused it? And perhaps the Home Office could be interested as well? Because I think the two reasons it's really important. One, it matters whether people are committing suicide in their employment to establish is it their employment that's causing it, or is there something else that the employer has got absolutely nothing to do with, but might have been able to help had they had some sensitivity to the, the, the problems that their staff are facing.
And finally, in terms of policing, it's about care. And I think for those who served, then you have to look after each other. My test is always at 3:00 in the morning when everybody else has gone home. You can't call the police. If you're you've got a problem, you've got to ring. You've got to remind your colleagues. So it's vitally important for any employer to look after, care for their staff because they want better performance, and they want to make sure that they're able to do what they're paying the salary for.
But in policing and emergency services in particular, you've got to rely on each other and you've got to look after each other. And this is probably the worst example where if if that isn't done properly or there's anything that you could do to help a person and they take their own life and we could have noticed, surely we'd all want to do something about that. And so for many reasons, I think it matters. And that's why I support Lord Bailey amendment and make the one that I mentioned I put forward for myself.
11:25
Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
Lord Bach (Labour)
I assume the noble Lord would like to move his amendment. >> I would like to move my amendment, I do apologise. >> Amendment proposed after clause 166, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I put my name to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I put my name to amendment 435 and of course, support the noble Lord Lord support the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe amendment for 138 a in this group I remind the Committee this group I remind the Committee that I served as the elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland for five years between 2016 and 2021 and I welcome this initiative by the Police Federation of England and Wales and of, say, in passing.
I'm proud to say that its chairman is a. Leicestershire Police officer, Tiff Lynch. At the present time, who I'm can call a friend as police and crime commissioner, I was responsible for the well-being. This is true about all police and crime commissioners, and perhaps not widely known of only one person, and that was the Chief constable. However, of course, as any police and crime commissioner would be, I was obviously concerned in a broader sense with the wellbeing of all those who worked for Leicestershire Police, whether officers or staff, during my time.
One senior officer took his own life in obviously tragic circumstances and since I left, left office, there's been another suicide, this time by a very recently retired senior officer. I'm afraid to say that over the last 30 years there have been four senior officer suicides in that force. I don't have any information concerning police staff, but I can remember clearly and won't easily forget the deep and lasting distress caused to all at police headquarters and beyond and the community by the death of the officer who took his life.
In my time, I have to confess to not knowing at the time that all police forces were not compelled by law to pass on information about suicide or attempted suicide. I imagine I presumed that they were compelled to do so. It surely obvious, certainly to me, that there should be mandatory reporting, and I cannot for the life of me, understand why that hasn't been the position up until now. That's why shortly I support these amendments and urge my noble friend the Minister, with his great knowledge of policing matters as well, to express the government's acceptance of the principle behind these amendments.
It almost goes without saying that police staff who perform such a vital and necessary role can be subject to enormous pressures that sometimes we don't even know about, and, of course, are rightly included in the mandatory reporting. This is a reform, my Lords, which should not be delayed. This bill is perhaps a useful vehicle for bringing in what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I put my name to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I put my name to amendment 435 and of course, support the noble Lord Lord support the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe amendment for 138 a in this group I remind the Committee this group I remind the Committee that I served as the elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland for five years between 2016 and 2021 and I welcome this initiative by the Police Federation of England and Wales and of, say, in passing.
I'm proud to say that its chairman is a. Leicestershire Police officer, Tiff Lynch. At the present time, who I'm can call a friend as police and crime commissioner, I was responsible for the well-being. This is true about all police and crime commissioners, and perhaps not widely known of only one person, and that was the Chief constable. However, of course, as any police and crime commissioner would be, I was obviously concerned in a broader sense with the wellbeing of all those who worked for Leicestershire Police, whether officers or staff, during my time.
One senior officer took his own life in obviously tragic circumstances and since I left, left office, there's been another suicide, this time by a very recently retired senior officer. I'm afraid to say that over the last 30 years there have been four senior officer suicides in that force. I don't have any information concerning police staff, but I can remember clearly and won't easily forget the deep and lasting distress caused to all at police headquarters and beyond and the community by the death of the officer who took his life.
In my time, I have to confess to not knowing at the time that all police forces were not compelled by law to pass on information about suicide or attempted suicide. I imagine I presumed that they were compelled to do so. It surely obvious, certainly to me, that there should be mandatory reporting, and I cannot for the life of me, understand why that hasn't been the position up until now. That's why shortly I support these amendments and urge my noble friend the Minister, with his great knowledge of policing matters as well, to express the government's acceptance of the principle behind these amendments.
It almost goes without saying that police staff who perform such a vital and necessary role can be subject to enormous pressures that sometimes we don't even know about, and, of course, are rightly included in the mandatory reporting. This is a reform, my Lords, which should not be delayed. This bill is perhaps a useful vehicle for bringing in what
11:29
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (Crossbench)
should have been there a long time ago. My Lords, I also rise in ago. My Lords, I also rise in support of this amendment and support of this amendment and follow on from my noble friend friends on what they have said. Now, policing is a difficult, dangerous policing is a difficult, dangerous and stressful task. I have for many years referred to police officers as the men and women who are dustbin collectors of society. They will go where other people do not want to go, and I would like to take my information source beyond what my two noble Lords have also mentioned.
My son did 32 years in the police service, just retired as a senior detective running one of the most difficult parts of the Metropolitan Police, now has a very senior role in government, and over the last 2 to 3 years, he and his friends have reported how people are either thinking about committing suicide, have attempted suicide or in his command over about 18 months to committed suicide. Now, it is a difficult question of whether and how you deal with a suicide.
It's sensitive information. People shy away from information. People shy away from it, understandably, but there is no doubt that we have a problem policing in terms of suicide. My own 30 years experience of Northern Ireland and taking people into the most difficult situation in policing that has ever been undertaken. More of that will be later, no doubt at a public inquiry. And what has been disclosed recently. Out of 28 people I went in all hand-picked into Northern Ireland on the so-called Stevens one.
Four of them never came back to policing. Two of them. I referred to the force medical officer who, thinking of committing suicide, those people never reached the statistics. And like the noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, I was an inspector of constabulary for nearly two years, inspecting many forces across the country, from the largest to the smallest, and one of the most important roles of the inspector at that case, and we have discussed this, is that we went and looked at the sickness rates of that force.
If you found the sickness rates were very high, performance was low, morale was low, and you did dig deeper, but it was difficult to find out where suicide played a role or if it played a role at all. But we have a problem here. And this, I think, if I might say so, to the noble Minister, who's always very supportive, may well be a nudge in the right direction. Some of us, as old men, do, have dinner parties, meet up for a glass of now and again.
And the information I'm getting someone from my old colleagues and current colleagues who I have to keep in contact with because of the activities we are now about to be involved in, in terms of Northern Ireland, is that there is a problem here. Now, I can understand why some chiefs will shy away from that. And we have a police commissioner here who did a superb job. Not many of them do or did, but he did. And I have to say, if you listen to what he has to say and what Lord Hogan-Howe has to say and what my information is, we need to do something.
Now. Maybe this amendment is too long and complex for it actually to stand the test of examination, but there is an amendment further on which has been submitted by Lord Hogan-Howe, which is short, sharp and to the point, and holds the kernel of what we're dealing with. So for me, I support the amendments, I support the final amendment, whichever way Lord Hogan-Howe wants to go. But let's have a look at it. What is there to hide behind these figures? Why has this survey come back with very, very little information in it? As a chief constable, a commissioner and an HMRC, that is not good enough.
And I don't believe that the Home Office should be treated in such a way. Thank you. Well done.
My son did 32 years in the police service, just retired as a senior detective running one of the most difficult parts of the Metropolitan Police, now has a very senior role in government, and over the last 2 to 3 years, he and his friends have reported how people are either thinking about committing suicide, have attempted suicide or in his command over about 18 months to committed suicide. Now, it is a difficult question of whether and how you deal with a suicide.
It's sensitive information. People shy away from information. People shy away from it, understandably, but there is no doubt that we have a problem policing in terms of suicide. My own 30 years experience of Northern Ireland and taking people into the most difficult situation in policing that has ever been undertaken. More of that will be later, no doubt at a public inquiry. And what has been disclosed recently. Out of 28 people I went in all hand-picked into Northern Ireland on the so-called Stevens one.
Four of them never came back to policing. Two of them. I referred to the force medical officer who, thinking of committing suicide, those people never reached the statistics. And like the noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, I was an inspector of constabulary for nearly two years, inspecting many forces across the country, from the largest to the smallest, and one of the most important roles of the inspector at that case, and we have discussed this, is that we went and looked at the sickness rates of that force.
If you found the sickness rates were very high, performance was low, morale was low, and you did dig deeper, but it was difficult to find out where suicide played a role or if it played a role at all. But we have a problem here. And this, I think, if I might say so, to the noble Minister, who's always very supportive, may well be a nudge in the right direction. Some of us, as old men, do, have dinner parties, meet up for a glass of now and again.
And the information I'm getting someone from my old colleagues and current colleagues who I have to keep in contact with because of the activities we are now about to be involved in, in terms of Northern Ireland, is that there is a problem here. Now, I can understand why some chiefs will shy away from that. And we have a police commissioner here who did a superb job. Not many of them do or did, but he did. And I have to say, if you listen to what he has to say and what Lord Hogan-Howe has to say and what my information is, we need to do something.
Now. Maybe this amendment is too long and complex for it actually to stand the test of examination, but there is an amendment further on which has been submitted by Lord Hogan-Howe, which is short, sharp and to the point, and holds the kernel of what we're dealing with. So for me, I support the amendments, I support the final amendment, whichever way Lord Hogan-Howe wants to go. But let's have a look at it. What is there to hide behind these figures? Why has this survey come back with very, very little information in it? As a chief constable, a commissioner and an HMRC, that is not good enough.
And I don't believe that the Home Office should be treated in such a way. Thank you. Well done.
11:34
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
I choose. The shortest of all >> I choose. The shortest of all the amendments. Four, three, eight a Lord Hart Lord Hogan-Howe a Lord Hart Lord Hogan-Howe amendment because it actually gets to what needs to happen without a lot of description. I've always felt that brevity is the best answer to a problem, because you know what it is that's being asked for. And for that, I want to congratulate him for putting in an amendment. Every organisation will face this whole question of suicide, and if there is a way of collecting the data, a way of working out why that's necessary, I don't believe that the duty of candour is simply the police in the way they treat citizens, but also the way the organisation treats the police service itself.
There must be relief from the chief officer, a duty of candour. And then, of course, the Home Office has a part to play. So I would support this wonderful short amendment because that's what needs to happen. You give them a much longer, longer amendment. And I'm afraid what is so simple is going to be lost into quite a lot of detail, which I don't think is what we want. Thank you. Well, the.
There must be relief from the chief officer, a duty of candour. And then, of course, the Home Office has a part to play. So I would support this wonderful short amendment because that's what needs to happen. You give them a much longer, longer amendment. And I'm afraid what is so simple is going to be lost into quite a lot of detail, which I don't think is what we want. Thank you. Well, the.
11:35
Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, from these benches there's strong support for there's strong support for amendments 435 and four, three, eight A which would finally shine a light on one of the most sensitive light on one of the most sensitive and least discussed aspects of police welfare, suicide and attempted suicide among officers and staff. This is not about apportioning blame, but about creating conditions in which people can seek help early and leaders cannot look away. Nearly two years ago, I sought this very information and was assured that work was happening to collate it.
Yet no figures have emerged, leaving families, colleagues and policymakers in the dark still awaiting clarity and transparency. These amendments would ensure bereaved families do not feel their loss has been silently absorbed, while confronting the lingering stigma about mental ill health in policing. Policing demands a particular duty of care that transcends the ordinary employer employee relationship, as the state requires officers to face repeated trauma unparalleled in any other walk of life. We're now operating in what many describe as a crisis policing model, where officers spend most of their time dealing with the darkest parts of human experience, with far fewer opportunities to balance that with visible, neighbourhood based work.
In the past, time spent on community policing would lift them out of the dark place. Today, that relief is much, much weaker. Much of the informal support that once existed has disappeared. Officers used to have shared spaces where they could decompress together at the end of a shift, but those communal areas have largely gone from staff shining sorry, from staff sifting through distressing online material every day to frontline officers facing the increasing likelihood of physical assault, the psychological strain is relentless.
This feeds a siege mentality in a service that still struggles to recognise emotion and is not naturally open. Policing remains an environment where taking paternity leave can invite mockery, and where the burden can fall, especially heavily on women and minority officers. Amid unreported discrimination in too many forces, officers still fear that admitting vulnerability will derail their career progression. My Lords, if Parliament seeks people to shoulder that burden on our behalf, it must insist on collecting basic information, tracking suicides and attempted suicides would pinpoint hotspots and high risk groups, enabling proactive measures like resilient training, peer support and routine psychological screening.
I would urge the Minister to take these amendments back to the Home Office and consider bringing report.
Yet no figures have emerged, leaving families, colleagues and policymakers in the dark still awaiting clarity and transparency. These amendments would ensure bereaved families do not feel their loss has been silently absorbed, while confronting the lingering stigma about mental ill health in policing. Policing demands a particular duty of care that transcends the ordinary employer employee relationship, as the state requires officers to face repeated trauma unparalleled in any other walk of life. We're now operating in what many describe as a crisis policing model, where officers spend most of their time dealing with the darkest parts of human experience, with far fewer opportunities to balance that with visible, neighbourhood based work.
In the past, time spent on community policing would lift them out of the dark place. Today, that relief is much, much weaker. Much of the informal support that once existed has disappeared. Officers used to have shared spaces where they could decompress together at the end of a shift, but those communal areas have largely gone from staff shining sorry, from staff sifting through distressing online material every day to frontline officers facing the increasing likelihood of physical assault, the psychological strain is relentless.
This feeds a siege mentality in a service that still struggles to recognise emotion and is not naturally open. Policing remains an environment where taking paternity leave can invite mockery, and where the burden can fall, especially heavily on women and minority officers. Amid unreported discrimination in too many forces, officers still fear that admitting vulnerability will derail their career progression. My Lords, if Parliament seeks people to shoulder that burden on our behalf, it must insist on collecting basic information, tracking suicides and attempted suicides would pinpoint hotspots and high risk groups, enabling proactive measures like resilient training, peer support and routine psychological screening.
I would urge the Minister to take these amendments back to the Home Office and consider bringing report.
11:38
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bailey of noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-howe, for bringing this matter to the attention of the matter to the attention of the Committee. The noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, Wellington. And I know all too well the stresses and strains of policing, and it is vital that more is done to support our officers. So I approach these amendments from the fact that it is impossible to address what we do not measure.
And at this moment, policing has almost no reliable national mechanism for measuring accurately the total number of police suicides. Data from the Police Federation of England and Wales shows that more than 100 police officers and staff have died by suicide between 2022 and 2025, with at least 70 officer deaths and over 200 attempted suicides in that period. These figures are likely undercounts because there is no statutory requirement for forces to record such events. The federation has also revealed troubling trends in how these incidents are linked with organisational stresses, notably that 47 of 70 suicides and 173 of 236 attempted suicides identified by them between 2022 and 2025, involved officers under investigation for misconduct or criminal allegations.
Now, this is not simply a statistic. It is a human tragedy that echoes through families, colleagues and communities. As already been said, police forces are not required to record suicide or attempted suicide, meaning the true scale of the problem is hidden from view, and national suicide statistics do not treat policing as a risk occupation as they should, and without a statutory duty to record and report. We are asking police leaders to act in good faith alone, with widely inconsistent results to the largest police forces in England and Wales reportedly could not provide their own figures.
When the federation asked. These amendments would end this inconsistency by placing responsibility for data collection and publication on a statutory footing. This amendment is not a step taken in isolation from policing leadership. The National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing are already committed to suicide prevention across the service. They have jointly endorsed a national consensus statement on working together to prevent suicide in the police service in England and Wales, acknowledging the importance of reducing stigma and improving wellbeing.
The College of Policing also leads a national suicide prevention guidance and professional practice, emphasising the duty of forces to recognise inherent risk factors associated with police work and to promote and to promote supportive interventions. But guidance and consensus alone cannot ensure consistent national reporting or create the accountability that comes from an annual report laid before Parliament, one that analyses trends, contributory factors and the effectiveness of support mechanisms under the police covenant. Requiring chief constables to certify compliance and linking non-compliance to inspection through Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services ensures that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise, but a real driver for change.
But without consistent mandatory data, these efforts lack the firm foundation needed to evaluate progress and target interventions where they are most needed. My Lords, we on these benches fully support these amendments.
And at this moment, policing has almost no reliable national mechanism for measuring accurately the total number of police suicides. Data from the Police Federation of England and Wales shows that more than 100 police officers and staff have died by suicide between 2022 and 2025, with at least 70 officer deaths and over 200 attempted suicides in that period. These figures are likely undercounts because there is no statutory requirement for forces to record such events. The federation has also revealed troubling trends in how these incidents are linked with organisational stresses, notably that 47 of 70 suicides and 173 of 236 attempted suicides identified by them between 2022 and 2025, involved officers under investigation for misconduct or criminal allegations.
Now, this is not simply a statistic. It is a human tragedy that echoes through families, colleagues and communities. As already been said, police forces are not required to record suicide or attempted suicide, meaning the true scale of the problem is hidden from view, and national suicide statistics do not treat policing as a risk occupation as they should, and without a statutory duty to record and report. We are asking police leaders to act in good faith alone, with widely inconsistent results to the largest police forces in England and Wales reportedly could not provide their own figures.
When the federation asked. These amendments would end this inconsistency by placing responsibility for data collection and publication on a statutory footing. This amendment is not a step taken in isolation from policing leadership. The National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing are already committed to suicide prevention across the service. They have jointly endorsed a national consensus statement on working together to prevent suicide in the police service in England and Wales, acknowledging the importance of reducing stigma and improving wellbeing.
The College of Policing also leads a national suicide prevention guidance and professional practice, emphasising the duty of forces to recognise inherent risk factors associated with police work and to promote and to promote supportive interventions. But guidance and consensus alone cannot ensure consistent national reporting or create the accountability that comes from an annual report laid before Parliament, one that analyses trends, contributory factors and the effectiveness of support mechanisms under the police covenant. Requiring chief constables to certify compliance and linking non-compliance to inspection through Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services ensures that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise, but a real driver for change.
But without consistent mandatory data, these efforts lack the firm foundation needed to evaluate progress and target interventions where they are most needed. My Lords, we on these benches fully support these amendments.
11:42
Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Hogan-howe for highlighting the amendments that he has put before the Committee today and also to the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington, although not in his place, as tabled the amendments. Also today, the importance of collecting accurate and consistent data for police officers and staff suicide is is certainly very relevant, and I am particularly noting that the noble Lord Stevens, noble Lord Hogan-howe, my noble friend Lord Bach, have a very significant senior level of experience in these areas.
I'm grateful also for the comments of the Right reverend noble Lord Sentamu for his support on this, and I've noted and recognised the strong support from the noble Lady Baroness Doocey and the noble Lord Davies of Gower, from the opposition benches for the proposals in the amendments. Every life lost to suicide is a tremendous tragedy. And when that person is part of our police workforce, that loss is even deeper, because those officers, as have been said, walk towards danger, see things that everyday citizens do not see.
And I think it's only fair that we do support them, but at the same care and commitment that they show to us. It may help the Committee to know that. I met with the Police Fed chair Tiff Lynch last year, where she raised these matters with me. I have to say that this is an issue and that we must do our utmost to protect and support police officers, and this government agrees that understanding the scale and nature of the problem is absolutely essential, and I think it's important that we do so for one of the reasons that the noble Lord Hogan-Howe said, I think it's really important that we understand whether any levels of suicide are linked specifically to a policing role or linked to factors outside of policing, which policing may or may not exacerbate, and also what measures can be taken, as in any walk of life, to help support and encourage individuals who have mental health challenges or experiences that drive them to suicide.
And that's why, again, as a government, we're actively considering the best options for achieving this, both in terms of legislation and also in legislative routes also, so that we can deliver meaningful and sustainable improvements without creating what I think are unnecessary burdens. But I was struck again that the survey that the Police Federation undertook didn't receive a significant response. It was a large response, but it wasn't a significant response given the nature of the issue that was raised.
Now, currently through the National Police Wellbeing Service and the Chief Medical Officer for policing, the government is already working to strengthen existing data collection and to improve the consistency, timeliness of information across forces, and we are now requesting more data than ever before. Now is that enough? I would say to the mover of the amendments today that I can inform him that the Policing Minister directly. Sarah Jones, MP, is currently now considering further options for mandating this data collection, including potentially strengthening the police covenant.
And and this is an important point for all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The potential for legislation if this proves necessary. Now, my noble friends will understand that this is a matter for discussion. We need to consult the stakeholders. The police Chiefs Council need to be engaged. The police fed need to be engaged. And my right hon. Friend, the Minister, Sarah Jones MP, has just this very last week, now convened a round table of stakeholders to examine the best routes forward to achieve the objectives that both amendments sets have highlighted today.
So that Round Table will take place shortly. And again, I think it's it's fair to say that that's a discussion around how we improve data collection. But if necessary, do we need legislation to force that data collection. And I hope that is a considered approach to what is a vital issue that has been raised by noble Lords in the chamber and Committee today. I also say to the movers of the amendment that alongside this there are existing mechanisms, including the Police Covenant, Clinical Governance Group and the National Police Chiefs Council Suicide Prevention Steering Group, who are also currently providing robust oversight, expert guidance and continuous improvement in suicide prevention and mental health support in the police service.
But what is clear from the committee's debate today and from the amendments brought forward is the good data does matter, but I think all noble Lords will accept that data alone does not save lives. We need to look at how we can support the workforce, including mandatory training on trauma, mandatory training on suicide prevention and introducing an overarching mandatory wellbeing standards service for policing. And in the Reform White Paper, which we made in this House, get a chance to discuss later in this week, but which was published yesterday in the House of Commons.
Those issues are central to the Reform White Paper. As I've said, the government is committed to getting this right. We want to look at a range of options. We want to ensure that the change is genuinely strengthened. Existing frameworks. We want to ensure they don't develop too much bureaucracy, but the objectives of the amendments to get data from police forces, which can look at what the reasons are and how we can help prevent those potential suicides or risk of suicides are extremely important.
I hope, having heard what I've said, that the noble Lord can for today at least withdraw his amendment in committee, I will obviously keep the House updated as to the outcomes of the round table that has been organised, and the Round Table have emerged to say the committee's amendment is helpful. But the round table was an initiative that the government were doing prior to the Committee stage of this bill, and one that I know we want to see through. We want to get this right.
It's absolutely important. I'm grateful to noble Lords for raising it today, but I would ask them to, at this stage at least, anyway, withdraw the amendment. Given what I've said.
I'm grateful also for the comments of the Right reverend noble Lord Sentamu for his support on this, and I've noted and recognised the strong support from the noble Lady Baroness Doocey and the noble Lord Davies of Gower, from the opposition benches for the proposals in the amendments. Every life lost to suicide is a tremendous tragedy. And when that person is part of our police workforce, that loss is even deeper, because those officers, as have been said, walk towards danger, see things that everyday citizens do not see.
And I think it's only fair that we do support them, but at the same care and commitment that they show to us. It may help the Committee to know that. I met with the Police Fed chair Tiff Lynch last year, where she raised these matters with me. I have to say that this is an issue and that we must do our utmost to protect and support police officers, and this government agrees that understanding the scale and nature of the problem is absolutely essential, and I think it's important that we do so for one of the reasons that the noble Lord Hogan-Howe said, I think it's really important that we understand whether any levels of suicide are linked specifically to a policing role or linked to factors outside of policing, which policing may or may not exacerbate, and also what measures can be taken, as in any walk of life, to help support and encourage individuals who have mental health challenges or experiences that drive them to suicide.
And that's why, again, as a government, we're actively considering the best options for achieving this, both in terms of legislation and also in legislative routes also, so that we can deliver meaningful and sustainable improvements without creating what I think are unnecessary burdens. But I was struck again that the survey that the Police Federation undertook didn't receive a significant response. It was a large response, but it wasn't a significant response given the nature of the issue that was raised.
Now, currently through the National Police Wellbeing Service and the Chief Medical Officer for policing, the government is already working to strengthen existing data collection and to improve the consistency, timeliness of information across forces, and we are now requesting more data than ever before. Now is that enough? I would say to the mover of the amendments today that I can inform him that the Policing Minister directly. Sarah Jones, MP, is currently now considering further options for mandating this data collection, including potentially strengthening the police covenant.
And and this is an important point for all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The potential for legislation if this proves necessary. Now, my noble friends will understand that this is a matter for discussion. We need to consult the stakeholders. The police Chiefs Council need to be engaged. The police fed need to be engaged. And my right hon. Friend, the Minister, Sarah Jones MP, has just this very last week, now convened a round table of stakeholders to examine the best routes forward to achieve the objectives that both amendments sets have highlighted today.
So that Round Table will take place shortly. And again, I think it's it's fair to say that that's a discussion around how we improve data collection. But if necessary, do we need legislation to force that data collection. And I hope that is a considered approach to what is a vital issue that has been raised by noble Lords in the chamber and Committee today. I also say to the movers of the amendment that alongside this there are existing mechanisms, including the Police Covenant, Clinical Governance Group and the National Police Chiefs Council Suicide Prevention Steering Group, who are also currently providing robust oversight, expert guidance and continuous improvement in suicide prevention and mental health support in the police service.
But what is clear from the committee's debate today and from the amendments brought forward is the good data does matter, but I think all noble Lords will accept that data alone does not save lives. We need to look at how we can support the workforce, including mandatory training on trauma, mandatory training on suicide prevention and introducing an overarching mandatory wellbeing standards service for policing. And in the Reform White Paper, which we made in this House, get a chance to discuss later in this week, but which was published yesterday in the House of Commons.
Those issues are central to the Reform White Paper. As I've said, the government is committed to getting this right. We want to look at a range of options. We want to ensure that the change is genuinely strengthened. Existing frameworks. We want to ensure they don't develop too much bureaucracy, but the objectives of the amendments to get data from police forces, which can look at what the reasons are and how we can help prevent those potential suicides or risk of suicides are extremely important.
I hope, having heard what I've said, that the noble Lord can for today at least withdraw his amendment in committee, I will obviously keep the House updated as to the outcomes of the round table that has been organised, and the Round Table have emerged to say the committee's amendment is helpful. But the round table was an initiative that the government were doing prior to the Committee stage of this bill, and one that I know we want to see through. We want to get this right.
It's absolutely important. I'm grateful to noble Lords for raising it today, but I would ask them to, at this stage at least, anyway, withdraw the amendment. Given what I've said.
11:49
Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
Can I just thank the Minister for such a constructive response? And of course, thank everybody for their support. Lord Bach made a particular point that I want. I've not made in my speech, but I wanted to amplify, which is that in collecting the data to consider people on at least 12 months after retirement, because if there is a link to and he mentioned one particular case, but we can all perhaps imagine others that would be interesting to to look at. I hope we don't have to end up with legislation, because in a way it's an admission of failure.
I think. I think there's far better ways of achieving it. Without that, all the bureaucracy that Lord Sentamu mentioned. Thank you to Lord Stevens for his usual powerful support for this and that common sense. This needs sorting out. And I think there was no challenge on that from the Minister. And of course, Baroness Doocey and Lord Davis for their wholehearted support for this. I want to say finally, it just seems to me it's really important for a couple of things that come up in the debate.
One, as Lord Davis mentioned, the potential link to misconduct processes. Yeah, if that is an issue, then we need to understand why we had a an amendment from Lord Bailey on a previous committee B, which was about potential deadlines or timelines for how long these things are taking that can't be unconnected. But whatever it is, we need to understand what it's about. And there's a second very important HR issue, which is that obviously we're recruiting people who understand the nature of the job that they're about to embark on.
Are we actually sharing the nature of the challenges that we supported at the beginning? If they have things that they're not sure about, but it's really important for the reasons we've all talked about, to make sure that this happens. I'm really reassured about the round table. Be really helpful if my Report stage, we've got a definite way forward because I can see the various routes forward, but at that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I, I just beg leave to withdraw my amendment and thank the government for its response. The Lord system, can I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Lord system, can I just raise one point with him? It seems to me, and certainly reflecting on to me, and certainly reflecting on my police service, that one of the issues regarding suicide simply was issues regarding suicide simply was the fact that police managers were unable to identify the issues when unable to identify the issues when they arose. And I wonder whether he, as a former commissioner, indeed, and part of the inspectorate has a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
view on that. Yeah, I think it's I think Lord Bates makes a really good point, which is, are we training our managers and supervisors to recognise the signs? And I say the second issue might be, I think, for good reason. Occupational health units keep all this data together units keep all this data together privately. But if the risk is well, Steven mentioned it was a referral to the medical officer to see to the medical officer to see whether or not there was a problem.
I wonder how many referrals are coming back. The other way to let the manager know this person might have an issue, not necessarily to talk about suicide, but so there is a stress issue here and they may need some support. There is the issue. Has it become a one way valve in protecting privacy, have reduced their safety. So I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there are many facets to it which hopefully the roundtable might address. Is it your Lordships pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 436, the Baroness Neville-Rolfe. My Lords, I rise to move my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to move my amendments 436 and 437. And I'd like to start by thanking my noble like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issue of police force, publication of enforcement
I think. I think there's far better ways of achieving it. Without that, all the bureaucracy that Lord Sentamu mentioned. Thank you to Lord Stevens for his usual powerful support for this and that common sense. This needs sorting out. And I think there was no challenge on that from the Minister. And of course, Baroness Doocey and Lord Davis for their wholehearted support for this. I want to say finally, it just seems to me it's really important for a couple of things that come up in the debate.
One, as Lord Davis mentioned, the potential link to misconduct processes. Yeah, if that is an issue, then we need to understand why we had a an amendment from Lord Bailey on a previous committee B, which was about potential deadlines or timelines for how long these things are taking that can't be unconnected. But whatever it is, we need to understand what it's about. And there's a second very important HR issue, which is that obviously we're recruiting people who understand the nature of the job that they're about to embark on.
Are we actually sharing the nature of the challenges that we supported at the beginning? If they have things that they're not sure about, but it's really important for the reasons we've all talked about, to make sure that this happens. I'm really reassured about the round table. Be really helpful if my Report stage, we've got a definite way forward because I can see the various routes forward, but at that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I, I just beg leave to withdraw my amendment and thank the government for its response. The Lord system, can I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Lord system, can I just raise one point with him? It seems to me, and certainly reflecting on to me, and certainly reflecting on my police service, that one of the issues regarding suicide simply was issues regarding suicide simply was the fact that police managers were unable to identify the issues when unable to identify the issues when they arose. And I wonder whether he, as a former commissioner, indeed, and part of the inspectorate has a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
view on that. Yeah, I think it's I think Lord Bates makes a really good point, which is, are we training our managers and supervisors to recognise the signs? And I say the second issue might be, I think, for good reason. Occupational health units keep all this data together units keep all this data together privately. But if the risk is well, Steven mentioned it was a referral to the medical officer to see to the medical officer to see whether or not there was a problem.
I wonder how many referrals are coming back. The other way to let the manager know this person might have an issue, not necessarily to talk about suicide, but so there is a stress issue here and they may need some support. There is the issue. Has it become a one way valve in protecting privacy, have reduced their safety. So I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there are many facets to it which hopefully the roundtable might address. Is it your Lordships pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 436, the Baroness Neville-Rolfe. My Lords, I rise to move my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to move my amendments 436 and 437. And I'd like to start by thanking my noble like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issue of police force, publication of enforcement
11:52
11:52
11:53
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
equivalent. As I explained at Second Reading, I have discovered in my long career in business and in my long career in business and in government that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and regulations themselves. This is as true for neighbourhood policing as it is for serious crime, and I think far too little is being done. I also believe in the power of comparative statistics as a driver of performance and success. As I agree with the noble Lord Lord Timpson during the sentencing Bill debate, good leadership and management.
So the manager of a store the prison governor is the best predictor in the police, although I would be interested to hear from the Minister at what level. That is true in the police structure. However, it is not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data heads. My amendment takes five areas of public concern, which we have already debated, and which the great British public care about shoplifting offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare dodging on public transport and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.
It would require police forces individually to publish annual data, so not a great burden on the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for prosecution. It needs to be accessible to the public and parliamentarians can see it and hold police forces to account. They will also be able to see how others are doing and learn from that success. It will, I suspect, help to reveal the scale of wasted effort. All those cases of burglary, shoplifting and theft. Many are not pursued despite good evidence from the victim because of the bureaucracy and even indifference of the system and the poor.
IT integration between the CPS and courts, which we've discussed on other occasions. It will help to focus on the right things, away from prosecutions for tweets, and back to the peelite principle that police need to be part of the community they serve. My Lords, the sunlit of publicity would help to drive necessary change. And I would say to the Minister that data does help people to do the right thing and to take timely and sensible action. But I'd be interested in knowing from the Minister how much of such data of that proposed in my amendment is already collected, and how accurate it is, so that we can assess how difficult the change would be.
Amendment 437 seeks to tackle the huge bureaucracy that the police services have become, with energetic police, women and men weighed down by requirements. The effect is to drain resource from the front line and our pavements. This bill indeed just adds to such requirements rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we can't solve the problem today, which is why I proposed a review of police paperwork. It needs to be led by an outsider with a passion for cutting red tape and looking to experience elsewhere, such as lean thinking in business, which we found very useful in the supermarkets.
Yeah, that's another huge employer of well-trained and decent people. The review could also look at the IT and AI systems, linking police to the courts, to the CPS and to other enforcement bodies. I believe that this huge scope to reduce and simplify paperwork and its online equivalent, the Minister may know that there is already a Police Federation campaign known, curiously as simplify DG six. It aims to tackle the bureaucracy around disclosure, 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 charge an offender. The Federation believe that a data bubble allows unredacted information to be exchanged between the police and the CPS, before a charging decision would free up thousands of policing hours every year. Redactions could then be completed by the police. If a person is to be charged. My Lords, I know from my own business experience that taking a proper look at such processes can yield huge productivity savings.
I hope the Minister will look at the proposals in our amendment seriously, and not just refer me to the police reform package announced yesterday. The Wild west of street crime is here today. But as the government has made clear, their reforms will take years to bring in. They will also increase and not decrease paperwork. My Lords are a bad apples in the police like everywhere. However, the idea of regularly requiring a licence to practise for every police constable is not necessary and will reduce efficiency, cost a fortune and lead to a mushrooming of accreditation and training paperwork or its online filing linked to the proposed wellbeing and development checks and career pathways.
I mean, licensed professions are generally for areas where there are specific and clear academic requirements, such as medical doctors or accountants. I don't believe it makes sense to under and could undermine one of the great police advantages. And I speak from experience of having a son in the met that it attracts intelligent and brave people to the dangerous task described so well by the noble Lord Lord Stevenson of Kirkwhelpington, who sadly is no longer in his place.
These do not necessarily. These policemen do not necessarily have, need or want the paperwork credentials of other important professions. You know, we need common sense, I think not credentialism that is the way ahead. Now, on the face of it, this approach feels mistaken, although I recognise that there will be extensive consultation on the changes in the white paper. But I think it is all the more reason for our proposed review of paperwork and bureaucracy. My Lords, I beg to move.
So the manager of a store the prison governor is the best predictor in the police, although I would be interested to hear from the Minister at what level. That is true in the police structure. However, it is not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data heads. My amendment takes five areas of public concern, which we have already debated, and which the great British public care about shoplifting offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare dodging on public transport and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.
It would require police forces individually to publish annual data, so not a great burden on the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for prosecution. It needs to be accessible to the public and parliamentarians can see it and hold police forces to account. They will also be able to see how others are doing and learn from that success. It will, I suspect, help to reveal the scale of wasted effort. All those cases of burglary, shoplifting and theft. Many are not pursued despite good evidence from the victim because of the bureaucracy and even indifference of the system and the poor.
IT integration between the CPS and courts, which we've discussed on other occasions. It will help to focus on the right things, away from prosecutions for tweets, and back to the peelite principle that police need to be part of the community they serve. My Lords, the sunlit of publicity would help to drive necessary change. And I would say to the Minister that data does help people to do the right thing and to take timely and sensible action. But I'd be interested in knowing from the Minister how much of such data of that proposed in my amendment is already collected, and how accurate it is, so that we can assess how difficult the change would be.
Amendment 437 seeks to tackle the huge bureaucracy that the police services have become, with energetic police, women and men weighed down by requirements. The effect is to drain resource from the front line and our pavements. This bill indeed just adds to such requirements rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we can't solve the problem today, which is why I proposed a review of police paperwork. It needs to be led by an outsider with a passion for cutting red tape and looking to experience elsewhere, such as lean thinking in business, which we found very useful in the supermarkets.
Yeah, that's another huge employer of well-trained and decent people. The review could also look at the IT and AI systems, linking police to the courts, to the CPS and to other enforcement bodies. I believe that this huge scope to reduce and simplify paperwork and its online equivalent, the Minister may know that there is already a Police Federation campaign known, curiously as simplify DG six. It aims to tackle the bureaucracy around disclosure, 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 charge an offender. The Federation believe that a data bubble allows unredacted information to be exchanged between the police and the CPS, before a charging decision would free up thousands of policing hours every year. Redactions could then be completed by the police. If a person is to be charged. My Lords, I know from my own business experience that taking a proper look at such processes can yield huge productivity savings.
I hope the Minister will look at the proposals in our amendment seriously, and not just refer me to the police reform package announced yesterday. The Wild west of street crime is here today. But as the government has made clear, their reforms will take years to bring in. They will also increase and not decrease paperwork. My Lords are a bad apples in the police like everywhere. However, the idea of regularly requiring a licence to practise for every police constable is not necessary and will reduce efficiency, cost a fortune and lead to a mushrooming of accreditation and training paperwork or its online filing linked to the proposed wellbeing and development checks and career pathways.
I mean, licensed professions are generally for areas where there are specific and clear academic requirements, such as medical doctors or accountants. I don't believe it makes sense to under and could undermine one of the great police advantages. And I speak from experience of having a son in the met that it attracts intelligent and brave people to the dangerous task described so well by the noble Lord Lord Stevenson of Kirkwhelpington, who sadly is no longer in his place.
These do not necessarily. These policemen do not necessarily have, need or want the paperwork credentials of other important professions. You know, we need common sense, I think not credentialism that is the way ahead. Now, on the face of it, this approach feels mistaken, although I recognise that there will be extensive consultation on the changes in the white paper. But I think it is all the more reason for our proposed review of paperwork and bureaucracy. My Lords, I beg to move.
12:00
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
The member proposed after clause 166 insert. The new clause is 166 insert. The new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, it's a pleasure, as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a pleasure, as ever, to rise to support my noble friend in her amendments. 34, three, friend in her amendments. 34, three, five six and 43 seven. I know she's an expert in intellectual property, but perhaps she might want to copyright the term wild West of street crime, as we've got used to it. My Lords, this is an amendment which goes to the heart of a police accountability. And that's the wider issue here. And the amendment seeks to put on a statutory footing the imperative to provide timely data in respect of enforcement, enforcement and openness and transparency, not necessarily a this amendment is not about interfering in the operational effectiveness or decision making of police, but it is about openness and transparency and restoring the faith and trust that taxpayers should have in their local police.
And unfortunately, the noble Lord Bach is not in his place and I'm sure he discharged his duties commendably in Leicestershire. But frankly, policing the police and crime commissioners model has not worked. And I speak as someone who used my maiden speech in the other place. In June 2005 to call for elected police commissioners, but I'm afraid it's been a damp squib, and the relationship between those commissioners and the senior police officers for whom they should have had accountability to them, has not worked out in the way it should have done.
And I applaud the government for at least making a decision to discontinue that. We see, my Lords, very egregious examples of apparent two tier policing. And I have to say that Robert Peel will be turning in his grave now, probably is when he looks at the antics of the Chief constable of the West Midlands, who colluded with Islamist thugs and their representative, the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Perry Barr, in in preventing Jewish fans from attending a game in our second city.
And he also lied twice to a parliamentary committee, seemingly with impunity. He's now left the service with a large taxpayer funded pension. The question is, do the police actually care about what elected politicians and Ministers think? And I'm not sure that is the case. And there were lots of cases, my Lords of alleged two tier policing, one only has to look more recently at the comparison between the policing of the Palestinian hate marchers from October 2023 and our capital, and, for instance, the banning of a walk with Jesus rally in east London and the heavy handed policy, sorry, policing of farmers protesting the government's tax policies at the end of last year.
This, my Lords, is not a political issue. It is an issue of the undermining of policing by consent. And that's bad news for all of us. My Lords, data is needed both for the justice system, particularly the police force, to work effectively and so that they can be scrutinised by lawmakers and the public. Public perception, perception of our police matters. We want our police to be perceived positively by the public based upon evidence that they are doing their jobs well.
Public perception of the police is currently low and crime rates appear to be high. Data on enforcement would both be a motivation for effective policing, and would help them to be held accountable and, more importantly, give an accurate public image. We currently have a crisis on our hands in respect of law enforcement in England and Wales. Knife crime in England and Wales rose by 78% between 2013 and 2023, even when the population growth was factored in, this was still a 68.3% rise, 31.5% of all robberies committed in London's Met Police area in 2024 involved stealing mobile phones, and noble Lords will know that the committee has considered my amendment ably put my my noble friend on the theft of mobile phones earlier this month.
This increase from 21.6 in 2021. In theft offences currently, according to police exchange, this is where an item is stolen from a person. But unlike a robbery, no force is used or threatened. The percentage of cases has risen and is between 68.5 and 72.6% of offences during the last four years, London has faced a dramatic surge in theft from the person. Offences a 170% increase in the three years up to 2024. Also, there were nearly 95,000 shoplifting offences, from two from June 20th 4 to 25.
Sorry in June 2425, a 38% increase in the previous year. My Lords, this amendment is about enforcement data. The police are not always effective in dealing with these crimes. For the year to March 25th, the met sold 5% of burglaries and robberies reported to them. They sold less than 1.5% of reported bike thefts and less than 8% of shoplifting offences. In 2024, only 0.6% of thefts from the person offences were solved. This decline from just 1.1% in 2021.
So public perception of the police is falling or becoming worse. In 2022, 50% of Londoners thought that their local police were doing a good job in 2025. That had dropped to 45%. My Lords, public police forces across England Wales should publish data annually and the enforcement of offences so that the public and lawmakers know how successfully crimes are being policed. The public also deserve to know this information. If the rates of crime are increasing, so then should the rate of enforcement, my Lords, we must support the peelite principle of policing by consent.
We need to collect, collate and analyse data to resort to restore public confidence. And that is why we need to support this amendment by my noble friend, which I have today, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to what is essentially a cross-party amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a pleasure, as ever, to rise to support my noble friend in her amendments. 34, three, friend in her amendments. 34, three, five six and 43 seven. I know she's an expert in intellectual property, but perhaps she might want to copyright the term wild West of street crime, as we've got used to it. My Lords, this is an amendment which goes to the heart of a police accountability. And that's the wider issue here. And the amendment seeks to put on a statutory footing the imperative to provide timely data in respect of enforcement, enforcement and openness and transparency, not necessarily a this amendment is not about interfering in the operational effectiveness or decision making of police, but it is about openness and transparency and restoring the faith and trust that taxpayers should have in their local police.
And unfortunately, the noble Lord Bach is not in his place and I'm sure he discharged his duties commendably in Leicestershire. But frankly, policing the police and crime commissioners model has not worked. And I speak as someone who used my maiden speech in the other place. In June 2005 to call for elected police commissioners, but I'm afraid it's been a damp squib, and the relationship between those commissioners and the senior police officers for whom they should have had accountability to them, has not worked out in the way it should have done.
And I applaud the government for at least making a decision to discontinue that. We see, my Lords, very egregious examples of apparent two tier policing. And I have to say that Robert Peel will be turning in his grave now, probably is when he looks at the antics of the Chief constable of the West Midlands, who colluded with Islamist thugs and their representative, the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Perry Barr, in in preventing Jewish fans from attending a game in our second city.
And he also lied twice to a parliamentary committee, seemingly with impunity. He's now left the service with a large taxpayer funded pension. The question is, do the police actually care about what elected politicians and Ministers think? And I'm not sure that is the case. And there were lots of cases, my Lords of alleged two tier policing, one only has to look more recently at the comparison between the policing of the Palestinian hate marchers from October 2023 and our capital, and, for instance, the banning of a walk with Jesus rally in east London and the heavy handed policy, sorry, policing of farmers protesting the government's tax policies at the end of last year.
This, my Lords, is not a political issue. It is an issue of the undermining of policing by consent. And that's bad news for all of us. My Lords, data is needed both for the justice system, particularly the police force, to work effectively and so that they can be scrutinised by lawmakers and the public. Public perception, perception of our police matters. We want our police to be perceived positively by the public based upon evidence that they are doing their jobs well.
Public perception of the police is currently low and crime rates appear to be high. Data on enforcement would both be a motivation for effective policing, and would help them to be held accountable and, more importantly, give an accurate public image. We currently have a crisis on our hands in respect of law enforcement in England and Wales. Knife crime in England and Wales rose by 78% between 2013 and 2023, even when the population growth was factored in, this was still a 68.3% rise, 31.5% of all robberies committed in London's Met Police area in 2024 involved stealing mobile phones, and noble Lords will know that the committee has considered my amendment ably put my my noble friend on the theft of mobile phones earlier this month.
This increase from 21.6 in 2021. In theft offences currently, according to police exchange, this is where an item is stolen from a person. But unlike a robbery, no force is used or threatened. The percentage of cases has risen and is between 68.5 and 72.6% of offences during the last four years, London has faced a dramatic surge in theft from the person. Offences a 170% increase in the three years up to 2024. Also, there were nearly 95,000 shoplifting offences, from two from June 20th 4 to 25.
Sorry in June 2425, a 38% increase in the previous year. My Lords, this amendment is about enforcement data. The police are not always effective in dealing with these crimes. For the year to March 25th, the met sold 5% of burglaries and robberies reported to them. They sold less than 1.5% of reported bike thefts and less than 8% of shoplifting offences. In 2024, only 0.6% of thefts from the person offences were solved. This decline from just 1.1% in 2021.
So public perception of the police is falling or becoming worse. In 2022, 50% of Londoners thought that their local police were doing a good job in 2025. That had dropped to 45%. My Lords, public police forces across England Wales should publish data annually and the enforcement of offences so that the public and lawmakers know how successfully crimes are being policed. The public also deserve to know this information. If the rates of crime are increasing, so then should the rate of enforcement, my Lords, we must support the peelite principle of policing by consent.
We need to collect, collate and analyse data to resort to restore public confidence. And that is why we need to support this amendment by my noble friend, which I have today, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to what is essentially a cross-party amendment.
12:07
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
My Lords, I totally support the amendment 4036 on the collection of enforcement data and the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough have explained, well why I do, but I actually am rising to speak to amendment 43 seven in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe calling for a review of police paperwork, and I thought I'd just explain why. Now, this might sound contradictory, because I've actually put my name on a number of amendments that require more data collection, and that might sound a little bit contradictory, but actually, I do think we need more granular and accurate data, but that we should look at data and ensure that it's streamlined and necessary, rather than just collected for the sake of it.
And I think that in that sense, there is no contradiction. The review of paperwork is necessary to identify and cut out all the endlessly needless form filling that police officers are forced to do. Whenever you talk to rank and file police officers, one of the most voluble frustrations that they voiced is the ever growing regime of paperwork and bureaucracy, complaining that they didn't sign up to become pen pushers. That's hardly what they envisaged when they joined the force.
And we've just heard more seriously, a very moving group. On the mental health challenges faced by some police officers. And I don't want to be glib, but when you talk to police officers, they will often say that they're tearing their hair out and completely demoralised because of the amount of bureaucracy that they face. So it's worth bearing that in mind now. The impressive multiplication of the number of forms the police have to fill out could be interpreted or indicative of the scientification, or the professionalisation of police work, as the bureaucratic regime's apologists would have us believe.
But I think that if you look at the duplication of information, which is often banal, by the way, it indicates a stifling bureaucratisation of policing and a trend that's actually, as I've said, a trend that's reiterated by officers as impeding their ability to respond to crime or engage in proactive crime solving. I just wanted to use one example that I had myself some years ago. A few years ago, I was a victim of a very nasty, unpleasant mugging, and I reported it to the police and as one does, and they were hyper active in their response.
In as much as I've got a very nice letter as a victim reassuring me that they were there for me as a victim, I got a form asking me to fill in whether I'd had the right kind of support as a victim. I even had a follow up phone call to find out why I haven't filled out my form and to make sure I was OK. The problem was, was that at no point did anyone visit me in the sense of attempting to apprehend the person who had committed the mugging that never came up.
It was all about my feelings about being a victim of crime rather than solving the crime. And imagine how much paperwork went into that. I was bemused by that, but infuriated as well. I think we would like this review to ask how this paperwork has proliferated. Certain people argue that the process driven approach to policing is created by a risk aversion. In fact, the police covering their own backs. Potentially, it might be that it's an obsessive obsession with communication.
There's certainly a lot of press releasing done and tweets put out and so on. The main thing, I suppose, is that we have to get to the bottom of what's creating it. I do think, and there's a discussion later, another group on this, that a lot of the work generated is not got anything to do with policing. So when I've talked to police officers, I know they are engaging a wide range of activity related to equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives that actually are also bureaucratic in terms of the kind of things that they have to do.
We heard the other day in a previous group about Non-crime hate incidents, how many hours are spent investigating those? But there's also a great deal of paperwork being generated by that, and hopefully we've seen the back of them. And perhaps, in fact, this amendment is kicking an open door here, and I'm hoping for a positive response from the noble Lord, the Minister, because the Home Secretary, Shabana mahmood, has made similar points. And it does seem to me that cutting red tape is a part of what the Home Office is trying to do, so I am delighted about that.
Just a couple of reservations I've got. I'm slightly worried that the solution for cutting red tape that's been put forward is a greater use of AI. Now I'm all for sensible use of technology, but I just want to note that the West Midlands Police force recently took a shortcut and cut back on a lot of hours of paperwork that would have been wasted in a proper investigation in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv football game with Aston Villa. But the problem with that shortcut and paper saving exercise was as a consequence, they came up with a non-existent football match, which.
To justify the banning of the Israeli fans as we know. And in fact, recent research by businesses has shown that for every ten hours of time apparently saved by the use of AI, four hours are used. Checking errors and fact checking AI output. And they've had to bring in extra staff to do that particular type of work. So I agree. And finally, I agree with the noble Baroness Neville-rolfe on her reservations about the licensing of police officers. I'm afraid that does fill me with horror.
Credentialism is notorious for being more bureaucratisation, and if you want any evidence, just look at the university sector and what's happening in certain sectors on that.
And I think that in that sense, there is no contradiction. The review of paperwork is necessary to identify and cut out all the endlessly needless form filling that police officers are forced to do. Whenever you talk to rank and file police officers, one of the most voluble frustrations that they voiced is the ever growing regime of paperwork and bureaucracy, complaining that they didn't sign up to become pen pushers. That's hardly what they envisaged when they joined the force.
And we've just heard more seriously, a very moving group. On the mental health challenges faced by some police officers. And I don't want to be glib, but when you talk to police officers, they will often say that they're tearing their hair out and completely demoralised because of the amount of bureaucracy that they face. So it's worth bearing that in mind now. The impressive multiplication of the number of forms the police have to fill out could be interpreted or indicative of the scientification, or the professionalisation of police work, as the bureaucratic regime's apologists would have us believe.
But I think that if you look at the duplication of information, which is often banal, by the way, it indicates a stifling bureaucratisation of policing and a trend that's actually, as I've said, a trend that's reiterated by officers as impeding their ability to respond to crime or engage in proactive crime solving. I just wanted to use one example that I had myself some years ago. A few years ago, I was a victim of a very nasty, unpleasant mugging, and I reported it to the police and as one does, and they were hyper active in their response.
In as much as I've got a very nice letter as a victim reassuring me that they were there for me as a victim, I got a form asking me to fill in whether I'd had the right kind of support as a victim. I even had a follow up phone call to find out why I haven't filled out my form and to make sure I was OK. The problem was, was that at no point did anyone visit me in the sense of attempting to apprehend the person who had committed the mugging that never came up.
It was all about my feelings about being a victim of crime rather than solving the crime. And imagine how much paperwork went into that. I was bemused by that, but infuriated as well. I think we would like this review to ask how this paperwork has proliferated. Certain people argue that the process driven approach to policing is created by a risk aversion. In fact, the police covering their own backs. Potentially, it might be that it's an obsessive obsession with communication.
There's certainly a lot of press releasing done and tweets put out and so on. The main thing, I suppose, is that we have to get to the bottom of what's creating it. I do think, and there's a discussion later, another group on this, that a lot of the work generated is not got anything to do with policing. So when I've talked to police officers, I know they are engaging a wide range of activity related to equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives that actually are also bureaucratic in terms of the kind of things that they have to do.
We heard the other day in a previous group about Non-crime hate incidents, how many hours are spent investigating those? But there's also a great deal of paperwork being generated by that, and hopefully we've seen the back of them. And perhaps, in fact, this amendment is kicking an open door here, and I'm hoping for a positive response from the noble Lord, the Minister, because the Home Secretary, Shabana mahmood, has made similar points. And it does seem to me that cutting red tape is a part of what the Home Office is trying to do, so I am delighted about that.
Just a couple of reservations I've got. I'm slightly worried that the solution for cutting red tape that's been put forward is a greater use of AI. Now I'm all for sensible use of technology, but I just want to note that the West Midlands Police force recently took a shortcut and cut back on a lot of hours of paperwork that would have been wasted in a proper investigation in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv football game with Aston Villa. But the problem with that shortcut and paper saving exercise was as a consequence, they came up with a non-existent football match, which.
To justify the banning of the Israeli fans as we know. And in fact, recent research by businesses has shown that for every ten hours of time apparently saved by the use of AI, four hours are used. Checking errors and fact checking AI output. And they've had to bring in extra staff to do that particular type of work. So I agree. And finally, I agree with the noble Baroness Neville-rolfe on her reservations about the licensing of police officers. I'm afraid that does fill me with horror.
Credentialism is notorious for being more bureaucratisation, and if you want any evidence, just look at the university sector and what's happening in certain sectors on that.
12:14
Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, amendment 437 calls for a review of the volume of paperwork police officers must complete in the course of their duties. This is one of the most persistent frustrations voiced by frontline officers. But despite the introduction of a new digital case file system, the use of automatic reduction reduction tools and simplified disclosure guidance, the core problem remains a combination of the Pre-charge full file requirement and an onerous disclosure regime. We share the noble Lady's concerns, but we do not believe a review is the answer.
The evidence is already on the table, as are the solutions. While prosecutors must have what they need to make sound decisions, police leaders believe that a more proportionate approach would allow officers to submit skeletal pre-charge files containing only the essential evidence in straightforward cases. Additionally, to streamline disclosure, they have suggested a secure data bubble as outlined by the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe, allowing unredacted material to be shared confidentially between the police and the CPS for charging purposes. A modest, targeted change to the Data Protection Act, or UK GDPR, would make that possible.
What's now required is not yet another review, but the political will to better align the police and CPS, freeing officers to focus on fighting crime rather than filling in forms. On amendment 436, we agree that while the public are acutely aware of the prevalence of these offences, too often they've no sense of whether such offences are investigated, still less prosecuted in their local area. Better information on enforcement of everyday offences would support accountability and make it much harder for forces to hide behind national averages, but in doing so, we must be careful to avoid imposing yet more rigid reporting duties on already overstretched officers.
The evidence is already on the table, as are the solutions. While prosecutors must have what they need to make sound decisions, police leaders believe that a more proportionate approach would allow officers to submit skeletal pre-charge files containing only the essential evidence in straightforward cases. Additionally, to streamline disclosure, they have suggested a secure data bubble as outlined by the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe, allowing unredacted material to be shared confidentially between the police and the CPS for charging purposes. A modest, targeted change to the Data Protection Act, or UK GDPR, would make that possible.
What's now required is not yet another review, but the political will to better align the police and CPS, freeing officers to focus on fighting crime rather than filling in forms. On amendment 436, we agree that while the public are acutely aware of the prevalence of these offences, too often they've no sense of whether such offences are investigated, still less prosecuted in their local area. Better information on enforcement of everyday offences would support accountability and make it much harder for forces to hide behind national averages, but in doing so, we must be careful to avoid imposing yet more rigid reporting duties on already overstretched officers.
12:16
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lord Woolf for bringing friend Lady Lord Woolf for bringing her two amendments to committee, and I begin with amendment 436, co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. My Lords, I strongly support my noble friends efforts to ensure that release statistics are rigorous, as rigorous and useful as possible. These releases are pivotal to both the police and public. The police are that they are aware of the types of crimes they are likely to encounter, and the public, so that they can judge the performance of police forces for themselves.
As it stands, there is not a standard, reliable measurement of crime rates and statistics. The current accredited accredited metric used by the office for National Statistics is the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is helpful in giving an indication of certain crime rates, but it cannot be described as a foolproof operational tool. It uses an interviewer administered face to face survey, which immediately makes the recounting of crime a choice on behalf of the victim, who may, for whatever reason, decide not to disclose a crime.
It only reports crimes committed against over 16 and excludes crimes against the general public, the state, tourists and residents of institutions. My Lords, I understand that this is done so that the survey is unaffected by police reporting or recording changes, but it also creates a crime reporting system deeply affected by human discretion, that can similarly not serve as a trustworthy basis. The least we can do is ask that the police are required to record data on the enforcement of offences simultaneously to the Crime Survey of England and Wales releases.
It would provide a metric to judge police performance, as it would demonstrate the estimated number of crimes committed compared to those investigated by police forces. My Lords, this leads me on to my noble friend Second Amendment, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Investigations into committed crimes must lead to prosecutions, or else there is little point in maintaining a justice system. Between 2020 and 2024, over 30,000 prosecutions collapsed. A large proportion of these came from the mishandling or loss of evidence by police.
The storage and retention of evidence is an area which is in desperate need of modernising. It has been described as overwhelming by serving officers and as too often resulted in injustice for victims. The first step in solving this issue is a thorough review of the system as it currently exists. Before setting out a blueprint of reform, the amendment would provide for this, so I wholly support it, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, does too. And again, I Minister, does too.
And again, I look forward to his reply.
As it stands, there is not a standard, reliable measurement of crime rates and statistics. The current accredited accredited metric used by the office for National Statistics is the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is helpful in giving an indication of certain crime rates, but it cannot be described as a foolproof operational tool. It uses an interviewer administered face to face survey, which immediately makes the recounting of crime a choice on behalf of the victim, who may, for whatever reason, decide not to disclose a crime.
It only reports crimes committed against over 16 and excludes crimes against the general public, the state, tourists and residents of institutions. My Lords, I understand that this is done so that the survey is unaffected by police reporting or recording changes, but it also creates a crime reporting system deeply affected by human discretion, that can similarly not serve as a trustworthy basis. The least we can do is ask that the police are required to record data on the enforcement of offences simultaneously to the Crime Survey of England and Wales releases.
It would provide a metric to judge police performance, as it would demonstrate the estimated number of crimes committed compared to those investigated by police forces. My Lords, this leads me on to my noble friend Second Amendment, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Investigations into committed crimes must lead to prosecutions, or else there is little point in maintaining a justice system. Between 2020 and 2024, over 30,000 prosecutions collapsed. A large proportion of these came from the mishandling or loss of evidence by police.
The storage and retention of evidence is an area which is in desperate need of modernising. It has been described as overwhelming by serving officers and as too often resulted in injustice for victims. The first step in solving this issue is a thorough review of the system as it currently exists. Before setting out a blueprint of reform, the amendment would provide for this, so I wholly support it, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, does too. And again, I Minister, does too.
And again, I look forward to his reply.
12:19
Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe, for her continued Neville-rolfe, for her continued interest in improving transparency and accountability in policing. She'll know that I'm outcome focussed myself, and I try to ensure that we do get outcomes. And I note the support from the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley and the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough for the amendments for 36, and indeed from the noble Lord Davies of Gower. The government has taken significant steps to improve visibility of police performance, and I just draw the noble Lady's attention to the newly established Police Performance Framework, which, supported by the Home Office Police Performance Unit, does provide a robust mechanism for monitoring enforcement activities across all current 43 police forces in England and Wales, and this does include the priority offences that she mentioned, such as shoplifting, knife crime and theft.
Now, she did mention the white paper and I will respond by trailing some of the issues that were in the White paper yesterday. And one of the key ones was that the Home Office will introduce an initial sector facing police performance dashboard this year, which will enable chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the transparent, high quality and operationally significant data that I believe all three speakers from the backbenches sought to have. This will empower forces to deliver improvements through strengthening their understanding of where they're performing well and where they can learn from practice and other forces to improve.
The framework has been designed to be flexible, and there's going to be a midpoint review in middle of 2728, allowing for the inclusion of any new priorities that might be brought forward. Now, the government believes this is an appropriate mechanism for considering additional offence categories rather than again, with due respect to the noble Baroness mandating them in primary legislation. And I took the noble Lady Ducie's point to heart that essentially requiring police forces to publish enforcement data on a fixed list of offences might well add burdens, might well add administrative duplication, and might well ensure that those offences already captured through a range of other mechanisms, and would contradict the later amendments of reducing police bureaucracy.
I think that that's an important factor to bear in mind when we consider this proposal. Furthermore, the police and the CPS are required to comply with the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on charging, which applies to all offences where a criminal offence and charge may be instituted. This guidance ensures that investigations meet evidential and public interest tests before prosecution. Compliance for that is monitored through an internal assessment framework between the police and CPS, which is crime agnostic but which is used for management purposes only, and again, the statutory duty to publish enforcement data for selected offences could duplicate these arrangements and divert resources from frontline policing.
So I would say in relation to amendment 46, in summary, that yes, we do need to improve, but we have put in place some mechanisms and we will monitor those mechanisms and hopefully return to them in due course without the legislative requirement proposed by the noble Lady. Her amendment 47 does go to the heart of the core issue of productive use of police time. And I note again the support of the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley particularly for this, the 2023 Police Activity Survey provided by the Home Office gave us significant insights into how police time is used, and we are planning to repeat that survey this year, which I hope will help us understand a bit more about the policing landscape.
The 23 Productivity Review, sponsored by the centre for Police Productivity in the College of Policing, prioritised the roll out of productivity enhancing capabilities such as the use of AI, such as robotic process automation, to reduce the time spent on administration. Now, again, I know I've heard today in committee concerns about AI, but I would suggest that properly used, it can reduce that bureaucracy. And in autumn 2024, we launched the Police Efficiency and Collaboration programme to support how we could improve productivity and efficiency in savings.
Now again yesterday and I have a copy to hand for ease of reference, the government did produce the Policing White Paper, a new model for policing, and in that white paper there are a comprehensive package of reforms addressing the very issues in the noble Ladies Amendment. Could I refer her initially to paragraph 91 on page 29 of the Home Office document, which says, and I quote, another area of extensive paperwork in policing comes from the requirements of the criminal justice system.
In the months ahead, we will work with the MoJ and Crown Prosecution Service alongside the Attorney General's office, to examine changes that could reduce the burden on policing. And it goes on further to say, as part of this work, we will look at a number of areas, including the disclosure regime and reduction, the out-of-court resolutions, charging and joint police prosecution performance metrics. And we will do that in conjunction with new and emerging evidence, such as the implications of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations for criminal court review.
We've recognised that in paragraph 91, which I've just put on the record again, that that is an important issue. And I refer also, if I may, to paragraph 293 of the document which says, and I just quote the first line of this, it is expected that in its first year, police AI will focus on some of the biggest administrative burdens facing policing, including disclosure, analysis of CCTV footage, production of case files, crime recording, classification and translating and transcribing documents.
And this will free up 6 million policing hours each year. So the government is focussed on those issues. I'm not convinced we need a legislative solution to deal with those. Self-evidently. Having put this in the white paper, it's a brand new document. Members will want to have a chance to reflect upon it, but the direction of travel is there, and I hope the noble Lady will understand that, that that review that she's calling for is the core issue is now addressed in the document that I've just referred the committee to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I'm old enough to remember the last time that we looked at regional police forces under his erstwhile colleague, the Right Honourable Charles Clarke, which I Honourable Charles Clarke, which I think was 2008 and 2009. I think actually there is some merit in the argument to amalgamate large forces. argument to amalgamate large forces. But will he confirm that AI is also important in in being used to important in in being used to support very local, hyper local community policing? There's a burglary taking place in the area every 11 minutes.
Very tragically, there's a rape taking place every 54 minutes. But there are big discrepancies between, say, Bexley, Richmond, Kingston and central London. Will will he ensure that Ministers have cognisant of the need to use AI to reinforce community policing, as well as the mergers of very large level across
**** Possible New Speaker ****
police forces? I'm grateful to the noble member
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble member for that, noble Lord for that don't wish to upset the chair of the committee. In our discussions today, I'll refer him to page 83, I'll refer him to page 83, paragraph 281, the first line in relation to the policing White Paper there says in policing, Paper there says in policing, getting the right information into the right hands at the right time can mean the difference between life and death. And that is absolutely right.
And the point that he's made is absolutely right. And I would suggest that AI, and particularly how it develops over the next few years, will be critical in distilling information that can be used by police to both investigate, capture and understand crime performance in any particular area. Now, we have some significant expertise in the Home Office that is looking at those issues, and the direction of travel has been set in the white paper to do that. And in addition to, dare I say, the the forces of good using AI criminals themselves are looking how they can use AI better to defraud and fraud people.
So we need to be ahead of the game on that as well. And in the white paper, we're looking at AI in both challenges, how it's used by bad actors and how we can reduce inflammation, collect information, analyse information and dissect trends in a much more speedy way, and to take out physical paperwork that we're looking at. And the noble Lord makes a very valid point about how that can be used in a local level, as well as on a national trend basis.
So I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Wolf that I hope that she understands that the the point she's making are very valid police paperwork. When I was last police Minister in 2009, ten, a long time ago, but when I was last doing this job, we had a review. We had the Police Federation urging us to do that. We've tried to reduce paperwork. It is absolutely critical what police officers should be doing is using technology to amass information about how we can prevent crime, how we can bring prosecutions to the CPS, and how we can understand trends in local areas.
As the noble Lord Jackson has said, that's the direction of travel in the White Paper. And I hope with those assurances, the noble Lady can withdraw her amendments.
Now, she did mention the white paper and I will respond by trailing some of the issues that were in the White paper yesterday. And one of the key ones was that the Home Office will introduce an initial sector facing police performance dashboard this year, which will enable chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the transparent, high quality and operationally significant data that I believe all three speakers from the backbenches sought to have. This will empower forces to deliver improvements through strengthening their understanding of where they're performing well and where they can learn from practice and other forces to improve.
The framework has been designed to be flexible, and there's going to be a midpoint review in middle of 2728, allowing for the inclusion of any new priorities that might be brought forward. Now, the government believes this is an appropriate mechanism for considering additional offence categories rather than again, with due respect to the noble Baroness mandating them in primary legislation. And I took the noble Lady Ducie's point to heart that essentially requiring police forces to publish enforcement data on a fixed list of offences might well add burdens, might well add administrative duplication, and might well ensure that those offences already captured through a range of other mechanisms, and would contradict the later amendments of reducing police bureaucracy.
I think that that's an important factor to bear in mind when we consider this proposal. Furthermore, the police and the CPS are required to comply with the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on charging, which applies to all offences where a criminal offence and charge may be instituted. This guidance ensures that investigations meet evidential and public interest tests before prosecution. Compliance for that is monitored through an internal assessment framework between the police and CPS, which is crime agnostic but which is used for management purposes only, and again, the statutory duty to publish enforcement data for selected offences could duplicate these arrangements and divert resources from frontline policing.
So I would say in relation to amendment 46, in summary, that yes, we do need to improve, but we have put in place some mechanisms and we will monitor those mechanisms and hopefully return to them in due course without the legislative requirement proposed by the noble Lady. Her amendment 47 does go to the heart of the core issue of productive use of police time. And I note again the support of the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley particularly for this, the 2023 Police Activity Survey provided by the Home Office gave us significant insights into how police time is used, and we are planning to repeat that survey this year, which I hope will help us understand a bit more about the policing landscape.
The 23 Productivity Review, sponsored by the centre for Police Productivity in the College of Policing, prioritised the roll out of productivity enhancing capabilities such as the use of AI, such as robotic process automation, to reduce the time spent on administration. Now, again, I know I've heard today in committee concerns about AI, but I would suggest that properly used, it can reduce that bureaucracy. And in autumn 2024, we launched the Police Efficiency and Collaboration programme to support how we could improve productivity and efficiency in savings.
Now again yesterday and I have a copy to hand for ease of reference, the government did produce the Policing White Paper, a new model for policing, and in that white paper there are a comprehensive package of reforms addressing the very issues in the noble Ladies Amendment. Could I refer her initially to paragraph 91 on page 29 of the Home Office document, which says, and I quote, another area of extensive paperwork in policing comes from the requirements of the criminal justice system.
In the months ahead, we will work with the MoJ and Crown Prosecution Service alongside the Attorney General's office, to examine changes that could reduce the burden on policing. And it goes on further to say, as part of this work, we will look at a number of areas, including the disclosure regime and reduction, the out-of-court resolutions, charging and joint police prosecution performance metrics. And we will do that in conjunction with new and emerging evidence, such as the implications of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations for criminal court review.
We've recognised that in paragraph 91, which I've just put on the record again, that that is an important issue. And I refer also, if I may, to paragraph 293 of the document which says, and I just quote the first line of this, it is expected that in its first year, police AI will focus on some of the biggest administrative burdens facing policing, including disclosure, analysis of CCTV footage, production of case files, crime recording, classification and translating and transcribing documents.
And this will free up 6 million policing hours each year. So the government is focussed on those issues. I'm not convinced we need a legislative solution to deal with those. Self-evidently. Having put this in the white paper, it's a brand new document. Members will want to have a chance to reflect upon it, but the direction of travel is there, and I hope the noble Lady will understand that, that that review that she's calling for is the core issue is now addressed in the document that I've just referred the committee to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I'm old enough to remember the last time that we looked at regional police forces under his erstwhile colleague, the Right Honourable Charles Clarke, which I Honourable Charles Clarke, which I think was 2008 and 2009. I think actually there is some merit in the argument to amalgamate large forces. argument to amalgamate large forces. But will he confirm that AI is also important in in being used to important in in being used to support very local, hyper local community policing? There's a burglary taking place in the area every 11 minutes.
Very tragically, there's a rape taking place every 54 minutes. But there are big discrepancies between, say, Bexley, Richmond, Kingston and central London. Will will he ensure that Ministers have cognisant of the need to use AI to reinforce community policing, as well as the mergers of very large level across
**** Possible New Speaker ****
police forces? I'm grateful to the noble member
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble member for that, noble Lord for that don't wish to upset the chair of the committee. In our discussions today, I'll refer him to page 83, I'll refer him to page 83, paragraph 281, the first line in relation to the policing White Paper there says in policing, Paper there says in policing, getting the right information into the right hands at the right time can mean the difference between life and death. And that is absolutely right.
And the point that he's made is absolutely right. And I would suggest that AI, and particularly how it develops over the next few years, will be critical in distilling information that can be used by police to both investigate, capture and understand crime performance in any particular area. Now, we have some significant expertise in the Home Office that is looking at those issues, and the direction of travel has been set in the white paper to do that. And in addition to, dare I say, the the forces of good using AI criminals themselves are looking how they can use AI better to defraud and fraud people.
So we need to be ahead of the game on that as well. And in the white paper, we're looking at AI in both challenges, how it's used by bad actors and how we can reduce inflammation, collect information, analyse information and dissect trends in a much more speedy way, and to take out physical paperwork that we're looking at. And the noble Lord makes a very valid point about how that can be used in a local level, as well as on a national trend basis.
So I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Wolf that I hope that she understands that the the point she's making are very valid police paperwork. When I was last police Minister in 2009, ten, a long time ago, but when I was last doing this job, we had a review. We had the Police Federation urging us to do that. We've tried to reduce paperwork. It is absolutely critical what police officers should be doing is using technology to amass information about how we can prevent crime, how we can bring prosecutions to the CPS, and how we can understand trends in local areas.
As the noble Lord Jackson has said, that's the direction of travel in the White Paper. And I hope with those assurances, the noble Lady can withdraw her amendments.
12:30
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
I think this has been a constructive discussion with a good tone, and I thank the Minister for his comments, including the the new dashboard and the plan to review that again in 2728 and other mechanisms like the, you know, policy activity review and of course, the various references that he rightly made to things that have been proposed in the white paper. And I'll look at all of that before report before deciding how we come back to this important subject.
I think I would warn against relying too much on AI. I'm a huge fan of using AI to improve improve justice systems, but it's it's also important to look at the underlying process themselves before turning them into AI or into tech processes. You need to look at the lean thinking that I mentioned, which obviously I have experience from, from the private sector, because that helps you to do things much better. Having said that, I'm very, very grateful for the wide support for the for this area.
I'd like to particularly thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for reminding us of some of the numbers, you know, especially in London. And then we heard about, you know, the collapse of cases and, you know, other difficulties which we need together to tackle. We heard about the importance of public, of improving public perception of police activity. And I believe that streamlined, good, clear data could help drive a better perception of what the police are doing and what they're trying to do.
And so improve public confidence on paperwork. The noble noble Lady, Lady Fox is right to question some of the things that police, the police are required to do and to record. And I feel that a review going slightly beyond what's in the white paper could actually help us with that. And, you know, I think that would help our very energetic home Secretary to do the right things to try and reduce bureaucracy, which I know is the government's intention.
Now, although we agreed on several things, as Lady Ducey and I tend to do, including the need for the data bubble between the police and the CPS, I think a review might help to make things happen. Now. When I was a Minister, I used to resist reviews. Again and again, but then occasionally I had to agree to them and I actually found where I managed to stay as Minister for a period, a reasonable period, that the reviews were incredibly useful in driving the department to be more effective and proactive.
I mean, I think the truth is we do need the right sort of data, and we do need to reduce paperwork to release resources for front line policing. Luckily, in this debate, we've all got the same objective. I beg to move to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by me withdrawn. Amendment 437 not moved. Amendment 438 has already been debated, so presumably not moved. Amendment 438A not moved. So we now come to group 3438B Baroness Cash.
I think I would warn against relying too much on AI. I'm a huge fan of using AI to improve improve justice systems, but it's it's also important to look at the underlying process themselves before turning them into AI or into tech processes. You need to look at the lean thinking that I mentioned, which obviously I have experience from, from the private sector, because that helps you to do things much better. Having said that, I'm very, very grateful for the wide support for the for this area.
I'd like to particularly thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for reminding us of some of the numbers, you know, especially in London. And then we heard about, you know, the collapse of cases and, you know, other difficulties which we need together to tackle. We heard about the importance of public, of improving public perception of police activity. And I believe that streamlined, good, clear data could help drive a better perception of what the police are doing and what they're trying to do.
And so improve public confidence on paperwork. The noble noble Lady, Lady Fox is right to question some of the things that police, the police are required to do and to record. And I feel that a review going slightly beyond what's in the white paper could actually help us with that. And, you know, I think that would help our very energetic home Secretary to do the right things to try and reduce bureaucracy, which I know is the government's intention.
Now, although we agreed on several things, as Lady Ducey and I tend to do, including the need for the data bubble between the police and the CPS, I think a review might help to make things happen. Now. When I was a Minister, I used to resist reviews. Again and again, but then occasionally I had to agree to them and I actually found where I managed to stay as Minister for a period, a reasonable period, that the reviews were incredibly useful in driving the department to be more effective and proactive.
I mean, I think the truth is we do need the right sort of data, and we do need to reduce paperwork to release resources for front line policing. Luckily, in this debate, we've all got the same objective. I beg to move to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by me withdrawn. Amendment 437 not moved. Amendment 438 has already been debated, so presumably not moved. Amendment 438A not moved. So we now come to group 3438B Baroness Cash.
12:34
Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Cash (Conservative)
My Lords, I rise to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 438B which the correct wording for which has now been is wording for which has now been is intended to be replaced by intended to be replaced by amendment 438E I'm very grateful, first of all, to the noble Lady first of all, to the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley and to the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough for supporting this amendment. And I'm also very grateful to the noble Minister he has. Was there a moment ago for reminding us about the general direction of travel taken by the government in this area.
The general expressed views by the Home Secretary and others over the last six months about improving data collection. And again in the White Paper, the objectives being to make data collection more consistent nationally. All of that is extremely welcome, welcomed by me. Sex is a foundational principle in crime. And by that I mean it's the sex of a an individual is a primary determinant of both offending patterns and victimisation risks. So it is an absolutely crucial piece of information in terms of the overall justice system at every point, for example, 98% of recorded rape offenders are male and roughly 9 in 10 suspects in serious violent offences are male, and those proportions have remained significantly consistent over time.
This information underpins offender profiling, a multi-agency public protection arrangements, domestic abuse risk models, custody practice and the government's own crime strategies. As we've just been hearing, if sex were not a material variable, none of those systems would function as they do. But despite this, at the moment there is no consistent national standard for what sex means in police recording systems. In some forces, it means biological sex, in others, it may reflect self-declared gender, in others, the two are conflated or left ambiguous.
In some systems, records can be altered without clear audit. The same offender committing the same offence can therefore be recorded differently, depending on the force or the system that produces incoherent national data sets undermines comparability between forces and also degrades the talking about AI and information collection. It degrades trend analysis. This is a massive problem because police data is the entry point for the entire criminal justice system. It feeds directly into that risk assessment. Offender management, safeguarding decisions, prison allocation, probation supervision and the national crime statistics.
If the data is unstable at the point of entry, everything downstream is compromised. And it's not just my view. This concern has been reinforced by repeated warnings from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services and the office for National Statistics, which have consistently found that police recorded crime data is highly sensitive to inconsistent recording practices. Where the system is already struggling with data quality, it's incredibly important that the core variables are clear, standardised and grounded in the facts.
It's not a hypothetical situation, and we know that Scotland has already tested the alternative and made the necessary changes for several years. Police Scotland, like England and Wales, was recording sex in the basis at times of self-declared gender, including for suspects in sexual offences. The result was that biological males charged with rape could be recorded as female, rendering national statistics unreliable and damaging overall public confidence in the system. After sustained scrutiny, they announced in October 25th that biological sex would be recorded for crime and policing purposes, with any transgender status recorded separately where relevant.
Operational reality forced that correction, which has been welcomed by the public. The independent experts have also supported that measure. The government commissioned review, led by Alice Sullivan, found that public bodies, including justice agencies, have allowed sex to be redefined or replaced, which degrades the data quality. The conclusion is very clear in her review in all areas, including crime, that sex should mean biological sex, and where gender identity is recorded, it should be recorded separately, not substituted. Their analysis also showed that once Murray Blackburn McKenzie's analysis showed that once sex recording drifts from biological reality, crime statistics become unreliable, contested and incapable of supporting sound policy or public trust.
And when you think about the very small numbers of women in this numbers, I've just related in respect of violent offences, for example, one can see that wrong data could massively skew those. The same issue arises in offender risk, an official Ministry of Justice analysis shows that men who identify as women have offending profiles aligned with the male offender population. So it's the whether trans, trans women and men have the same offending profile, including for violent and sexual offences.
Now, to be absolutely clear, this does not mean I'm not suggesting that trans women are in any way more inclined than the average man to commit offences, but as the population profiles, the same rate of offences is perpetuated within that population. Male pattern violence does not change through identity declaration. When men are recorded as female in police data, male violence is understated, female offending is overstated and risk analysis is distorted. This really matters for repeat offender analysis, escalation risk and most importantly, for safeguarding.
And we've already seen the consequences of ignoring biological sex in custodial settings. In England, we've had assaults occurring by the placement of men in the female prison estate. The government responded to this by tightening allocation rules, explicitly re-anchoring decisions in biological sex and risk assessment, and that policy itself recognises the basic truth that biological sex is a material safeguarding factor in criminal justice. That is a well established principle among criminologists. Police data is the upstream source for those decisions, and this also matters massively for the government's Violence against women and girls strategy.
That strategy relies on police recorded crime data to measure the prevalence, trends and progress. It rests on two empirical facts women and girls are disproportionately the victims of certain crimes, and I hope there will be no one in this House who would dispute that. And those crimes are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. If police data cannot reliably identify male offenders because sex has been replaced by gender identity, progress can't be measured and accountability collapses, there's nothing in this amendment that alters how the police should interact with transgender people, or prevent would prevent gender identity being recorded separately.
Where operationally relevant, it does not change or seeks to change how individuals are treated. It simply seeks to ensure that biological sex is not lost or overwritten, because all of the evidence shows that it matters. A criminal justice system that can't accurately record the sex of offenders simply cannot accurately analyse male violence or protect women effectively. And that is why I seek to move amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 438B which the correct wording for which has now been is wording for which has now been is intended to be replaced by intended to be replaced by amendment 438E I'm very grateful, first of all, to the noble Lady first of all, to the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley and to the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough for supporting this amendment. And I'm also very grateful to the noble Minister he has. Was there a moment ago for reminding us about the general direction of travel taken by the government in this area.
The general expressed views by the Home Secretary and others over the last six months about improving data collection. And again in the White Paper, the objectives being to make data collection more consistent nationally. All of that is extremely welcome, welcomed by me. Sex is a foundational principle in crime. And by that I mean it's the sex of a an individual is a primary determinant of both offending patterns and victimisation risks. So it is an absolutely crucial piece of information in terms of the overall justice system at every point, for example, 98% of recorded rape offenders are male and roughly 9 in 10 suspects in serious violent offences are male, and those proportions have remained significantly consistent over time.
This information underpins offender profiling, a multi-agency public protection arrangements, domestic abuse risk models, custody practice and the government's own crime strategies. As we've just been hearing, if sex were not a material variable, none of those systems would function as they do. But despite this, at the moment there is no consistent national standard for what sex means in police recording systems. In some forces, it means biological sex, in others, it may reflect self-declared gender, in others, the two are conflated or left ambiguous.
In some systems, records can be altered without clear audit. The same offender committing the same offence can therefore be recorded differently, depending on the force or the system that produces incoherent national data sets undermines comparability between forces and also degrades the talking about AI and information collection. It degrades trend analysis. This is a massive problem because police data is the entry point for the entire criminal justice system. It feeds directly into that risk assessment. Offender management, safeguarding decisions, prison allocation, probation supervision and the national crime statistics.
If the data is unstable at the point of entry, everything downstream is compromised. And it's not just my view. This concern has been reinforced by repeated warnings from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services and the office for National Statistics, which have consistently found that police recorded crime data is highly sensitive to inconsistent recording practices. Where the system is already struggling with data quality, it's incredibly important that the core variables are clear, standardised and grounded in the facts.
It's not a hypothetical situation, and we know that Scotland has already tested the alternative and made the necessary changes for several years. Police Scotland, like England and Wales, was recording sex in the basis at times of self-declared gender, including for suspects in sexual offences. The result was that biological males charged with rape could be recorded as female, rendering national statistics unreliable and damaging overall public confidence in the system. After sustained scrutiny, they announced in October 25th that biological sex would be recorded for crime and policing purposes, with any transgender status recorded separately where relevant.
Operational reality forced that correction, which has been welcomed by the public. The independent experts have also supported that measure. The government commissioned review, led by Alice Sullivan, found that public bodies, including justice agencies, have allowed sex to be redefined or replaced, which degrades the data quality. The conclusion is very clear in her review in all areas, including crime, that sex should mean biological sex, and where gender identity is recorded, it should be recorded separately, not substituted. Their analysis also showed that once Murray Blackburn McKenzie's analysis showed that once sex recording drifts from biological reality, crime statistics become unreliable, contested and incapable of supporting sound policy or public trust.
And when you think about the very small numbers of women in this numbers, I've just related in respect of violent offences, for example, one can see that wrong data could massively skew those. The same issue arises in offender risk, an official Ministry of Justice analysis shows that men who identify as women have offending profiles aligned with the male offender population. So it's the whether trans, trans women and men have the same offending profile, including for violent and sexual offences.
Now, to be absolutely clear, this does not mean I'm not suggesting that trans women are in any way more inclined than the average man to commit offences, but as the population profiles, the same rate of offences is perpetuated within that population. Male pattern violence does not change through identity declaration. When men are recorded as female in police data, male violence is understated, female offending is overstated and risk analysis is distorted. This really matters for repeat offender analysis, escalation risk and most importantly, for safeguarding.
And we've already seen the consequences of ignoring biological sex in custodial settings. In England, we've had assaults occurring by the placement of men in the female prison estate. The government responded to this by tightening allocation rules, explicitly re-anchoring decisions in biological sex and risk assessment, and that policy itself recognises the basic truth that biological sex is a material safeguarding factor in criminal justice. That is a well established principle among criminologists. Police data is the upstream source for those decisions, and this also matters massively for the government's Violence against women and girls strategy.
That strategy relies on police recorded crime data to measure the prevalence, trends and progress. It rests on two empirical facts women and girls are disproportionately the victims of certain crimes, and I hope there will be no one in this House who would dispute that. And those crimes are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. If police data cannot reliably identify male offenders because sex has been replaced by gender identity, progress can't be measured and accountability collapses, there's nothing in this amendment that alters how the police should interact with transgender people, or prevent would prevent gender identity being recorded separately.
Where operationally relevant, it does not change or seeks to change how individuals are treated. It simply seeks to ensure that biological sex is not lost or overwritten, because all of the evidence shows that it matters. A criminal justice system that can't accurately record the sex of offenders simply cannot accurately analyse male violence or protect women effectively. And that is why I seek to move amendment.
12:42
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
Amendment proposed after clause 166 insert. The new clause is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the Marshalled List. I have enthusiastically added my name to this amendment for three name to this amendment for three ASB or 438F on recording of ASB or 438F on recording of biological sex in police data to prevent reliance in in terms of prevent reliance in in terms of administrative records on self-identification and so on. I think the noble Lady Baroness Cash has laid out the arguments with has laid out the arguments with great clarity and precision, and I appreciate that in the past, I've tabled similar amendments to previous bills.
Unfortunately, my attempts were far less elegantly argued than noble Lady Baroness Cash, but they were also rebuffed, as though I was motivated by some ideological attempt at undermining inclusion policies. But actually, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, is that I want ideology out of data and data collection. And I think that the, the, the there is a slightly different atmosphere. Now, I hope that we can have this discussion because since then, the Supreme Court's clarity in relation to equality, the equality law and the distinct category of biological sex in relation to single sex provision gives us an important marker.
But we've also had the Sullivan Review, commissioned in 2024 by the Secretary of State for science, Innovation and Technology under Rishi Sunaks government, but also, I think, broadly welcomed by the present government in terms of its themes, which is to identify obstacles to accurate data, data collection and research on sex and gender, and in public bodies and in the research system. And to set out good practice. I would like to just state this point that I think we owe a huge thanks to Professor Alice Sullivan for her 226 page review.
I think it was a real work of public service, and it found that the recording of sex and gender across the justice system and police forces is highly inconsistent and in a muddle, and therefore is not reliable. And I think that this really matters, because anything that erases biological sex or even confuses biological sex from official data in relation to crime is really problematic. Many of the policies in this bill, if they are to be effective, rely on evidence and that evidence must be based on therefore reliable data.
I got interested in this issue some time ago, talking to academics in criminology and in research, because it's important for their research that official crime data, such as recorded crime and the is accurate, accurate data is what policymakers also need, as well as researchers to analyse patterns of offending, to allow interventions to be developed and resources to be targeted effectively. Importantly, criminal justice data needs to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the Marshalled List. I have enthusiastically added my name to this amendment for three name to this amendment for three ASB or 438F on recording of ASB or 438F on recording of biological sex in police data to prevent reliance in in terms of prevent reliance in in terms of administrative records on self-identification and so on. I think the noble Lady Baroness Cash has laid out the arguments with has laid out the arguments with great clarity and precision, and I appreciate that in the past, I've tabled similar amendments to previous bills.
Unfortunately, my attempts were far less elegantly argued than noble Lady Baroness Cash, but they were also rebuffed, as though I was motivated by some ideological attempt at undermining inclusion policies. But actually, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, is that I want ideology out of data and data collection. And I think that the, the, the there is a slightly different atmosphere. Now, I hope that we can have this discussion because since then, the Supreme Court's clarity in relation to equality, the equality law and the distinct category of biological sex in relation to single sex provision gives us an important marker.
But we've also had the Sullivan Review, commissioned in 2024 by the Secretary of State for science, Innovation and Technology under Rishi Sunaks government, but also, I think, broadly welcomed by the present government in terms of its themes, which is to identify obstacles to accurate data, data collection and research on sex and gender, and in public bodies and in the research system. And to set out good practice. I would like to just state this point that I think we owe a huge thanks to Professor Alice Sullivan for her 226 page review.
I think it was a real work of public service, and it found that the recording of sex and gender across the justice system and police forces is highly inconsistent and in a muddle, and therefore is not reliable. And I think that this really matters, because anything that erases biological sex or even confuses biological sex from official data in relation to crime is really problematic. Many of the policies in this bill, if they are to be effective, rely on evidence and that evidence must be based on therefore reliable data.
I got interested in this issue some time ago, talking to academics in criminology and in research, because it's important for their research that official crime data, such as recorded crime and the is accurate, accurate data is what policymakers also need, as well as researchers to analyse patterns of offending, to allow interventions to be developed and resources to be targeted effectively. Importantly, criminal justice data needs to be