Lord Davies of Gower (Con)

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 394 and to the other amendments in this group. Britain has a very proud and distinctive model of policing by consent. The defining feature of that model is that the overwhelming majority of our police officers do not routinely carry firearms and when firearms are deployed it is because the threat is so grave that lethal force may be necessary to protect life. That responsibility falls on a very small and highly trained group of officers, and I do not think it hyperbole to say that police firearms officers are some of the bravest, most dedicated officers in the country. According to the latest Home Office statistics, as of 31 March 2025, 6,367 police officers were authorised to carry firearms in England and Wales. That compared with 6,473 the year before, so it is clear that their number is shrinking. That is not something we can afford. It is why my amendment would introduce a presumption against the prosecution of armed police officers where they had discharged their firearm. It would do this by requiring a prosecutor when considering bringing charges against an armed officer to apply the principle that it should be exceptional to bring a prosecution against that officer. This raises the threshold for prosecutions to be instituted. The CPS would have to clear a higher bar to do so. I want to cast aside some incorrect aspersions. I am not suggesting that armed police officers should be above the law—I want to be absolutely clear about that. The higher prosecution threshold that would be introduced by proposed new subsection (4) of my amendment would still permit prosecutors to bring charges against officers where there are exceptional circumstances. All it is saying is that there must be an acknowledgment of the unique nature of the circumstances that lead to an officer discharging their weapon. Proposed subsection (5) would require prosecutors to give particular weight to the unique demands and exceptional stresses to which firearms officers are subjected, as well as the incredible difficulties of making time-sensitive, split-second decisions. I want to impress this on the House. It is impossible to understand the immense pressure facing you when you are tasked with the responsibility of carrying a police firearm. I know—I have done it. I carried a firearm for a number of years while employed on counterterrorist duties. Imagine the toll it takes on you as a person. To make it worse, you always have the thought in the back of your mind that, if you do have to use your weapon, you might be hounded for years by the press, by protestors and even by the police force you so dutifully served. To face the possibility of being dragged before the courts simply for doing your job, with your name splashed over all the papers, is enough to deter anyone, but we cannot afford that to happen. All police firearms officers are volunteers. We need these dedicated officers. We rely on them to protect us in this very building—they are outside, right at this very moment, standing ready to prevent any possible attack. That is why I cannot support the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As I said in Committee, I am firmly supportive of applying the Government’s approach of a presumption in favour of anonymity. The amendments from the noble Lord would not, in my view, substantially alter the status quo, whereby the decision to grant anonymity is at the court’s discretion. We all say that we must support the police, but support is expressed not only in words; it must be reflected in the structures of law and justice. Those who protect the public in the gravest of circumstances deserve a system that recognises the unique demands placed upon them. Above all, we must ensure that we protect those who protect us. If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, or if I do not hear warm words, I may well seek to test the opinion of the House.