My Lords, I oppose the stand part notices and support the Government in their clauses. I have heard the proposers of the stand part notices make much of what is a relatively weak argument, suggesting that this is a constitutional outrage, when all that is happening is a change in the assumption about anonymity. Anonymity is already available; this is just about who has to prove whether it should be granted. A lot of hyperbole has been used about this. I accept that the media will make this argument; I do not deny that. I agree that the police should be held accountable; that is not the issue. It is about a very small group of people. I will try to address the point about evidence. A point was made about what evidence had been advanced; I will try to address at least two things.

First, of course, this was built on the Chris Kaba case. Frankly, I think the judge made the wrong decision about anonymity. I believe that because Mr Kaba was arrested having been connected to two shootings and linked to an organised crime gang who had access to firearms. Naming the officer put him at risk of attacks by connected people. Bear in mind that, three years later, within three hours a jury found him not guilty. It was never a very strong case, but why did the judge order the anonymity order to be lifted in those circumstances?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, mentioned, the reaction from firearms officers was to do with two things—the charging of the officer in the first place and the compound effect of the lack of anonymity. I do not think that many of them laid their weapons down. There may have been a threat to, as that was an emotional reaction, but it did not happen because they are honourable people who know that, if they walk away, nobody is there to help, so they will keep doing their job on the whole.

It is a very small group of people who might be affected as suspects in these cases. There are only about 5,500 firearms officers in England and Wales. Over the last 20 years, they shot dead on average three people per year and wounded another two. It is a very rare event that police officers in the UK will shoot people. It has been quite hard for me to find details about how often they have been charged with offences, but I estimate it is around five to 10 times over the last 20 years, so it is quite a rare event. Even if this is to be agreed, and the Bill passes in the form that it is, not that many people will be affected by it. I do not think the press’s accountability mechanism will be affected vastly.

These officers all volunteer. They are not paid any more to do what they do. They cannot be ordered to do what they do. We rely on them. About 60 million of us rely on 5,000 of them to do what none of us can do—to go forward with a gun and deal with a situation that none of us want to face. It is in that circumstance that I think they are, if not a unique group, a very unusual group. Even the military cannot do it unless the Government allow them. This is a pretty special group of people, and we need to support them. I argue that there should be more support. I have argued about when we should charge them. However, this was a singular measure the Government offered in response to the Chris Kaba case and many others.

We could have talked about the Anthony Long case I mentioned earlier. It took 10 years and then they found him not guilty. In the W80 case, an officer, having gone through 10 years of inquiry, then had no case to answer before a misconduct process. These are the cases that are lodged in the minds of the officers who have this task to do on our behalf. Imagine that, in the 0.75 of a second in which you have to make a decision, someone is hanging on your shoulder saying, “Well, make sure you do it right, because we’ll come looking for you afterwards”.

Many of these officers never discharge their weapons. I think in 2025 there were 17,000 incidents in which a police firearm was deployed, but I have already mentioned how often they discharge their weapons; it is very few times. They are not a trigger-happy group. They need our support, and this is just one of the mechanisms by which we can do it.

Secondly, an assumption is all that it is. It can be argued out. The evidence for the change is that the Chris Kaba case shows that judges can get it wrong. Perhaps they, like all of us, can make mistakes. More importantly, how do you prove that there is a genuine threat when someone is charged? There is no such thing as perfect intelligence about whether these things will happen. We saw in the second Iraq war that intelligence is a variable feast. It is people analysing information they have to give their best assessment of whether a threat exists. Surely we should give some leeway to the officer in the case. It is not only about them but about their families. Their families go through this for years as well; they live at the same address. Their kids go to the same schools. They are affected by it.

I have met the officer involved in the Chris Kaba case. The experience his family had over the years that he was under inquiry was pretty awful. They had to move out for a while and had to decide whether to permanently move home. We all say, “Well, actually, this is just a point of principle and a legal issue”, but it is not to them; this is their life. I understand why the media make the argument and why it is a legal issue that must be debated properly, but I think this is a minor measure that might give some comfort to a brave group of people whom we rely upon.