Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support keeping these clauses in the Bill. I admire the moral courage of Ministers in this Government for putting these clauses in the Bill, despite the well-made arguments against doing so.

My calculation is that, in central London, a rampaging terrorist’s life expectancy is about nine minutes. Not surprisingly, these events are infrequent, because they are not likely to be successful. This is primarily due to the fortitude, courage and training of the armed police officers of the Metropolitan Police.

I have been on duty in an operational military headquarters, in the field, overseas, when we had to deal with life-threatening emergencies. There is nearly always an information fog, and it is exceptionally difficult for commanders to understand what is actually happening on the ground. The same will apply to police control rooms during a terrorist attack. I understand the difficulties; I have been there. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Police and other forces usually manage to suppress an attack within a few minutes, for which we should all be really grateful. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that, if there are enough such incidents, perceived or real problems will arise. We only need to think of the difficulties that arose with the Bondi Beach tragedy. We must accept that things might not go as desired.

I am not a lawyer, but the Committee will be aware that I have engaged in armed military operations. I knew that I was accountable for my actions, as well as any troops under my command. That was an obvious risk, but one that, as a prudent risk-taker, I was prepared to accept because I was confident that I would be fairly and promptly dealt with if something went wrong. I am not convinced that the same applies to armed police operations. We have already discussed in the last group delays in the disciplinary machinery. Unfortunately, I was late attending, but I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said—I apologise for not being there at the start.

In questionable police firearms cases, the CPS has the very difficult task of balancing two conflicting factors. On one hand, there is the very low probability of conviction in these cases—perhaps the Minister will tell us how many armed officers on duty have been convicted of such offences. If that were the only consideration, it would be difficult to authorise a prosecution because the prospect of a conviction would be very low. But, on the other hand, we need to secure public confidence that the police and the state are not above the law and that the evidence against a relevant police officer will be tested by a jury in court. If we do not agree these clauses, we run the risk of prudent risk-takers declining to be trained or to keep their firearms ticket.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, touched on the use of the military instead of the police. The military is not correctly trained to undertake civil policing duties. It can in certain circumstances be used, but the military will apply overwhelming military force to resolve the issue.

This lack of willingness to volunteer for firearms duty could, in turn, result in standards being surreptitiously lowered in order to meet demand for authorised firearms officers, leading to precisely the opposite effect to the one we desire. I am sure the Minister will deny that there is any possibility of standards being surreptitiously lowered, but I assure noble Lords that, in the military—not so much in firearms training but in other areas—we are surreptitiously lowering the standards, so this is a very real risk. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, touched on existing recruiting difficulties.

When, regrettably, an armed police officer has to do his or her duty, we cannot allow the lives of his or her family and friends to be turned upside down by media attention that serves no useful purpose.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, this is not a small matter that we are debating. I have listened to both sides of the argument. The argument in favour of these stand part notices was made in detail, initially by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and was then supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. I listened to those submissions, and they strongly reflected my own. I asked myself: is there anything I can usefully add? I do not think there is, but we are dealing with a matter of high principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, reminded us of the statement that hard cases make bad law. What we have heard in opposition to these stand part notices exemplifies that proposition. We are dealing with a very important matter, and we should not allow a few hard cases to make bad law.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. This is a moment when, as legislators, we have to pause and ask where the balance really lies. For me, this is not an either/or. When legislators try to legislate, they must not pass the burden of coming to terms with difficult conundrums to someone else to resolve. I would be quite unhappy if we were to leave it to the judge to decide. If they go for anonymity, the courts could then be seen by some people as being on the side not of the citizen but of a few. We have to resolve this and come to a common mind on where we think this should be done. It seems to me that we should not burden the courts with coming to a decision. Legislators should make up their minds on what way they want to go.

I am persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I have always been in favour of open courts, trial by jury and no citizen being above the law. We should all have equality before the law, but that argument can sometimes, unfortunately, ignore circumstances that need to be differentiated—not because you do not want fairness and equality but because, if you blindly go down a particular road, you may cause a greater injustice. That is why I am not in favour of people who are so moralist and who keep to their morals: if you are not careful, you could end up with an injustice.

To those who oppose these clauses and to the Government, who bravely want to put this particular way of doing it in the Bill, I suggest that a further conversation needs to be had. How do we resolve this? Clearly, some of us—and I am one of them—would like to defend police officers who have to decide in a split-second to do something, without a lot of thought. They see a danger and they want to neutralise it—not like in Minnesota, where I do not think there was any danger; I would not want to defend those kinds of actions. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has given us the figures, and actually the statistics are very low. In the unfortunate cases where this has happened, most of our armed police officers are disciplined and well trained. However, in life, you always end up with risks you did not anticipate.

I would want to go the way that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, argued for—that if somebody took a decision because they saw greater danger and they took somebody out, I can tell you, the media and other people will focus on their family, not on the decision that was taken. We who are legislators cannot ignore the difficulty that that raises for families.

I do not think that volunteers will disappear immediately if these clauses are not part of the Bill. I still think there are people who, for the sake of security and the well-being of society, will continue to volunteer—but you are going to make it more difficult. I plead with all of us in that regard. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has encapsulated my thoughts on this but I am still in a quandary: will I vote for this or for that? I just hope that the mover of this stand part notice will withdraw it, knowing that Report is still to come, so that it is a clear conversation, and then we can all make up our mind where this is going to lie.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 50 and Amendment 51, to which I have added my name. I agree with the case that my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has made, and with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden.

I point out that the detail of the arrangements for improving protection against unfair dismissal was one of the areas that provoked the widest debate in Committee. Some 21 noble Lords spoke, and nearly all were concerned about the perverse effects of completely removing the two-year qualifying period. When we discussed my concerns in Committee, the Minister said that when I saw the Government’s implementation plan I would be reassured. However, while it is generally helpful, all it says on this matter is that in summer/autumn 2025 they will consult on:

“Giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from ‘day 1’, including on the dismissal process in the statutory probation period”.


So we still do not know what the rules will be.

I believe that the approach the Government are taking of making up the vital detail of legislation after Bills have passed, so well exemplified here, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, is profoundly undemocratic. This is giving too much power to the Executive. The Minister should be able to tell us categorically today that employers will be able to dismiss unsatisfactory staff without risking a tribunal during a probation period of six or nine months.

I will not repeat all I said in Committee from the historic perspective of a good employer like Tesco. We even had a unique partnership with the trade union USDAW, seemingly very different from some of the public sector unions dominating this Bill. My main current concern, as the Minister knows, is that day-one rights will make employers extremely nervous about taking on new employees, especially the young or those with a risky track record like the unemployed or the disabled. This will kill growth. My noble friend Lord Sharpe talked about the disincentive to hire. That sums it up perfectly.

There is government evidence to support this. DBT’s economic analysis of 21 October 2024 admits, in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:

“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.


In other words, lower growth.

The provisions will require significant extra internal resource to ensure compliance. It will be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees from day one, and indeed in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital look extremely easy in contrast. It is a looming tragedy for smaller businesses already drowned in regulation. Above all, it will increase costs, adding to the jobs tax in the last Budget, and at a time when the Chancellor is promising to reduce red tape. Another certainty, as we have heard, is that the changes will increase the traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I know someone whose case has been listed for 2027.

Because it is important, I am extremely keen to help the Government find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances. The fact is that sometimes, appointments do not work out, and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within six or nine months, which I believe the Government are contemplating for their probation period, but we need certainty on this and probably a government amendment before the Bill becomes an Act. For me, this uncertainty, which is why I have chosen to speak from the Back Benches on an area outside my own responsibility, could prove to be the very worst aspect of this Bill. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will think again.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 23 and the linked Schedule 3 repeal Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period of employment and make further amendments to the Act in respect of the repeal.

Section 108 stipulates that the protection under Section 94 of the Act, which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed, subject to certain conditions, does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years. During this two-year extended training period—for that is what it is, and I speak as an employer—when you induct a new employee, you know that if they do not work out, and there are clear headings governing this under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims.

Now, that is to be removed by Clause 23 and Schedule 3. We are repealing Section 108 of the 1996 Act, one of the basic building blocks of employment law in this country. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, have said, it helps offer protection to both parties. It makes for a fluid labour market and avoids the zombie businesses which do little for the wider economy and militate against growth.

I will not go through each of the amendments because noble Lords have heard about them already, but they would facilitate good working practices for both parties. Those looking for a job would be more likely, as we have heard, to be appointed. There will be more job vacancies, which, as we know, have sadly fallen and continued to fall over the last year. Those looking for a job would be more likely to find one and more likely to start their first job, as we have already heard today. The employer would be able to take a risk, as we have heard today—to take a chance on a new employee.

Taking on a new employee involves a great commitment. It involves the commitment not only of a salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost, but of time, training, patience, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation, so that they can contribute as a happy, contented, productive and effective member of the team. With this clause, we will not have the protections of that. I cannot think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person, and this will have very bad effects on the economy and growth.

We know there are legal grounds already for unfair dismissal in respect of the job itself. They include conduct, capability, redundancy, legal restrictions on employment and other substantive reasons. Noble Lords have spoken about these today, but there are cast-iron reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You cannot be dismissed as a whistleblower or for discrimination, and these do not require the two-year qualifying period. The law takes care of this.

Now, with the removal of the two-year period goes the protection for the employer and the opportunities for new employees particularly, but also for many employees who want to change jobs and start a new walk of life. They may find they are not so good at what they were doing and want to try their hand at a new job. They need time to settle in, just as the new person coming into their first job does.

I am not at all convinced that this initial period, which Ministers have told us will have a lighter touch in respect of unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful. Some law firms fear that it will impose pretty much the same strictures on an employer. We really need to know from the Minister what exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during that period will be, because I cannot see how we can have a Bill setting all this out when we do not know what is intended.

Like other noble Lords, I would value some statement. I do not need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment that estimates hundreds of millions of pounds, or the additional complexity in the recruitment process. Added to the other measures in the Bill, Clause 23 and Schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.

If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, willing to grow, to raise productivity as the Government want and to hire the new employees needed to raise that productivity, the Government should welcome Amendment 49 and all the amendments in this group. They accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and go some way in helping the Government to get out of the mess, which is of their own creation.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Hate crime is pernicious and I would support the noble Baroness’s contention that hate crime, whether against the Jewish community or people who are legitimately protesting about Palestinian issues—not Hamas, Palestinian issues—is an important potential crime. If crimes are committed and the police wish to pursue those crimes at a local level, they can do so; there are powers in place to make arrests where criminal activity takes place in any form of protest.

The noble Baroness shakes her head, but there are powers now available for the police to arrest people on the basis of hate crime. If the police exercise that power, that is a matter for the police. The noble Baroness would not expect a Minister to undertake those arrests. The police make a judgment; they can make arrests and bring matters to court. Indeed, they have done on a range of crimes, particularly against the Jewish community in the current climate.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, in order to qualify for a respect order, will behaviour have to be criminal? If not, what criteria will it have to satisfy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his question. I want to get to the exact wording correct. With the respect order particularly, it does not have to be criminal behaviour. It can be behaviour that potentially causes alarm, distress or harassment. Again, I say to the House that those matters will be tested as we go through Committee. There will be opportunities to clarify what that means and put down some legal guidelines during Committee in this House. The idea of the respect order is to tackle what I would term low-level anti-social behaviour. If criminal actions have been taken, criminal sanctions are available to police to make arrests accordingly. I hope we can reflect on that during Committee.